Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Criminal Convictions

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last three years the proportion of criminal offences that ended in a court conviction. [914]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): About 6 per cent., but the percentage for more serious offences was very much higher and many of those convicted will have committed other crimes of which they have not been convicted.

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that that figure is a percentage of recorded crime only, that the level of convictions is a disgrace and that the biggest deterrent to crime is the fear of getting caught? Will he accept that it is now three times more likely that a burglar or rapist will escape punishment than when Labour was in power? Will he do something to address that problem, instead of giving us this continual rhetoric?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's comments would carry some conviction if he and his hon. Friends had been prepared to support the measures that we have taken to increase the likelihood of convictions taking place. Let me give an example: if the rate of suspects refusing to answer questions has fallen by half—as it has since we reformed the right to silence—that reform is likely to increase the proportion of convictions, yet the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, including the Leader of the Opposition, steadfastly opposed it, root and branch.

Sir Irvine Patnick: Some of those offences will be knife offences. As my right hon. and learned Friend is aware, I contacted the umbrella organisations for the

industry in Sheffield to ensure that none of the manufacturers were disadvantaged. I sent him some of the work done by the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association. Has that been taken into consideration when framing any proposed legislation?

Mr. Howard: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall take into account all representations, including those to which he referred, when considering proposals for further legislation on this matter.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, when someone is convicted of a criminal offence, it is important that he receives an appropriate sentence? Will he assure the House that he will continue to work towards his objective of imposing longer sentences on burglars, rapists and other people who commit violent crimes, and that he will not be deflected from that objective by the views of former Ministers, liberal judges and penal reformers? The British public are entirely behind his efforts on this front.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can certainly give him the assurance that he requests. If we are to fight crime effectively, we need both to convict the criminals and to ensure that they are properly dealt with—and properly punished—when they have been convicted. That is one of the purposes of the proposals set out in the Crime (Sentences) Bill—a Bill to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) referred on the radio this week, saying that he was leading the opposition to it.

Mr. Beggs: When criminal offences involving the illegal smuggling of tobacco products into the United Kingdom occur, such as the recent large haul impounded in Belfast in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seek to ensure that the level of fine imposed on conviction matches the value of the impounded cargo and thereby protect our local newsagents and, indeed, the Treasury, which is losing valuable revenue?

Mr. Howard: I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am not sure that we are yet ready to introduce a series of minimum mandatory fines and, in the absence of such fines, the matter is for the discretion of the court concerned, but I have great sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Michael: As the Home Secretary issues his soundbite attacks on the Opposition, he knows in his heart of hearts that Labour has worked hard in opposition to be tough on crime, to be tough on the causes of crime and to support the Government when they make constructive proposals. In contrast, would not a little more humility be appropriate when the Home Secretary considers the facts: that recorded crime is double the level it was when the Conservative party came to power, that fewer than one in 50 crimes end up in a punishment by a court, and that, in his county of Kent, violent crime has gone up by 300 per cent.—and robbery by 600 per cent.—since the Conservative party came to power?

Mr. Howard: We hear these inane generalities from the Labour party, but Labour Members refuse to deal with


the specific points such as the example that I put to them a few minutes ago. The number of suspects refusing to answer questions has nearly halved since we reformed the right to silence. When we reformed the right to silence, the Labour party—whose shadow Home Secretary at the time is now the Leader of the Opposition—opposed that reform root and branch. What we have done—not uttering inane generalities across the Floor of the House—is the way to get criminals convicted and to reduce crime.

Handguns

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's latest proposals on handguns. [915]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Government have introduced legislation that will stop all handguns being kept at home—.22 rimfire handguns will have to be kept in licensed, secure pistol clubs. All higher calibre handguns will be prohibited. I believe that those provisions will give the public the protection that they need.

Mr. Winnick: Is there not overwhelming public support for a ban on handguns? Is it not a pity that the Government are not going even further, as requested by the police and as would certainly be supported by the public—although Ministers are shaking their heads? Is it not disgraceful—almost obscene—that some members of the gun lobby are reported to be urging a dirty tricks campaign against the organisers of Snowdrop? How low and deplorable can one get?

Miss Widdecombe: I naturally deplore all dirty tricks campaigns and all low and deplorable levels to which people sink when opposing perfectly sensible legislation. I believe that the measures that we are introducing produce the right balance between protecting the public, ensuring that handguns will not be in circulation outside secure clubs and preserving what has been a perfectly legitimate sport in this country for more than 100 years.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept my total opposition, of which she knows, to this intended Bill? The Government intend to confiscate the personal property of innocent individuals. The Bill will have an enormous effect, not only on those individuals but on numerous businesses and very many others attached to the industry. The proposed compensation is totally inadequate. In a sense of fairness, will the Government accept that they are wrong? Will my hon. Friend ensure that compensation is much fairer and wider than is presently proposed, especially in the money resolution associated with the Bill?

Miss Widdecombe: Our current proposal is to compensate people for the loss of their guns at the market value of those guns on the day before the Secretary of State's statement. We shall compensate dealers for their stocks of guns on the same basis. I am always prepared to consider any sensible and reasonable suggestion that any hon. Member on either side of the House may wish to make during the Bill's passage, but I have explained our present thinking to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Henderson: The Minister will be aware that, arising out of the gun Bill, there has been wide public

debate not just about pistols, but about other forms of firearms currently used in the United Kingdom. Has consideration been given to airguns, which are commonly in use in many parts of the country? They are often used by young people to intimidate and harass others in the community, and can be purchased by a 17-year-old and used by a person aged 14. Does the Minister believe that there is a case for reviewing the law on airguns, considering a system of licensing, and changing the age at which people can buy or use such potentially lethal weapons?

Miss Widdecombe: Licensing is important. That is why, although the Bill is largely geared to handguns, it includes proposals that cover rifles as well. The proposals that we have produced are in response to the independent report by Lord Cullen. It is in the public interest to get legislation on the statute book quickly. We therefore thought that we should tackle the particular problem in hand.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend say when she may be able to offer a considered response to the genuine concerns of those who shoot with muzzle-loading, flintlock or matchlock pistols, which could not by any remote stretch of the imagination be connected with contemporary crime?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have made a number of exceptions—for example, for antique guns and trophies of war. We are giving careful consideration to the definitions that we have used. We will take into account the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend, and consider our response as soon as possible.

Ms Eagle: Will the Minister comment on the availability of extremely dangerous shotgun cartridges, which often do greater damage than smaller bullets in handguns? Although everyone in the House accepts the argument that handguns should be banned because they can be more easily concealed, does the Minister agree that we should consider stricter licensing measures for rifles and shotguns as well, and the possibility of including such measures in the Bill?

Miss Widdecombe: I have already said that we have tightened up the conditions for issuing certificates, especially with regard to the referees required and the proof of fitness. That applies not only to handguns, but to rifles as well. I also said, in response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that many issues might have been considered, but, in the interests of getting legislation quickly on to the statute book to protect the general public, we have addressed principally the concerns raised by Lord Cullen.

Schengen Treaty

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy with regard to United Kingdom accession to the Schengen treaty. [916]

Mr. Howard: The Government have no intention of seeking accession to the Schengen treaty.

Mr. Brown: I am delighted to hear that answer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that border


controls are essential in our aim to defeat drug trafficking and all other forms of crime? May I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that there are sufficient customs officers at ports such as Immingham in my constituency, and at Humberside airport in my constituency, which are vulnerable to drug trafficking and the importing of illegal goods?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of maintaining our frontier controls. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made it clear on more than one occasion that we have no intention of doing anything to dismantle or weaken them. With reference to customs and immigration officers, my hon. Friend will be aware that we are making greater use of intelligence-led action to deal with the importation of drugs and other forbidden substances and articles into the United Kingdom. Those methods are having considerable success.

Mr. Beith: Does the Home Secretary's opposition to the Schengen agreement extend to the work of Europol, which is essential in tackling international drug trafficking and in which British police officers play an important role? Why has the British Government resisted the development of Europol, on occasion blocking its essential provisions? Is that part of the Schengen argument?

Mr. Howard: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has completely the wrong end of the stick. In fact, the United Kingdom Government were at the forefront of progress in establishing Europol. We continue to make progress in advancing it, and we expect to be one of the first countries to ratify the Europol convention.

Handgun Control

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public representations he has received since 16 October on handgun control proposals. [917]

Miss Widdecombe: Since 16 October, we have received upwards of 250 letters on this subject from right hon. and hon. Members. The Department has received more than 700 telephone calls and more than 1,200 letters from the public. The great majority of letters have been from individual shooters.

Mr. Dykes: As to the idea of a total ban on handguns or one so close to being a total ban that it renders unnecessary the creation of new loopholes in the future, does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming views of about 56 million people are much more important than those of 56,000 shooters?

Miss Widdecombe: As I said in response to a previous question, we are trying to strike a balance between protecting legitimate sporting rights and protecting the public. Lord Cullen produced an independent report with 24 recommendations, 23 of which we have accepted. I assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to get the balance right.

Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister confirm that, under the proposed legislation, individuals who currently own high

calibre weapons will receive compensation, and, there is nothing to stop them buying. 22 calibre weapons, so the estimated figure of some 40,000 .22 calibre weapons in circulation after the legislation is enacted is likely to fall far short of the mark, and people may use many more such weapons than they do at present?

Miss Widdecombe: That is an impossible prophecy. Perhaps some people who currently own .22 calibre weapons will decide, because of the restrictions on other weapons or the inconvenience caused to some—but not all—clubs, to cease to use .22 calibre weapons. It is quite impossible to make that sort of behavioural prediction.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend concede that there is a serious possibility that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights may oblige the British taxpayer to provide compensation on a much wider basis—to those who manufacture pistols, to gun clubs owners, professional shooters and those who supply the ancillary trades? As the object of the exercise is to preserve human life, does my hon. Friend agree that, if the level of compensation were to rise to between £0.5 billion and £1 billion as some suggest, taxpayers might consider that the money would be better spent elsewhere?

Miss Widdecombe: Our estimates are nowhere near the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend. We shall take full account of all our legal obligations in deciding how we should compensate and what compensation is proper. There are plenty of precedents for providing compensation following changes in the law. We shall do what we believe is right, and we shall put our proposals before the House.

Dr. Godman: May I point out to the Minister that, a few years ago, two Glasgow police officers were shot dead by an assassin armed with a .22 calibre pistol. Does she realise that the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland demand that any ban on pistols should include .22 calibre weapons?

Miss Widdecombe: The statistics for homicides between 1992 and 1994 show clearly that only about 5 per cent. Involved .22 calibre weapons. I agree that 5 per cent. is too much, but it puts the problem into context. I sympathise with the relatives of the policemen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, but I believe that, by confining guns to clubs, we are tackling the problem of guns in circulation and held perfectly legally by the general public.

Short-term Remand

Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce short-term remands to allow fast tracking of cases; and if he will make a statement. [918]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We want to ensure that cases come to trial as soon as possible. All the criminal justice agencies are committed to this end and much is being done. We have also recently set up a review to identify urgently what more can be done to reduce delays, including the possibility of shorter-term remands.

Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there are only 349 secure places available in


England and Wales, a new sort of secure facility is needed in which juveniles can be held in secure conditions while their needs are assessed by a multi-agency group? The problem that is being experienced quite widely is that juveniles abscond from normal community homes, or sometimes abscond from a car on their way to such a home. We need short-term secure remand facilities.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in conjunction with the Department of Health, we have been investing sums to ensure that more remand spaces are available, but we must be interested in speeding up the process of bringing all cases to trial, whether in the Crown courts or magistrates courts, whether for adults or for juveniles. A range of studies is under way, which is being supervised by the pre-trial issues steering group. The group is endeavouring to ensure that all parts of the criminal justice system move as quickly as possible in future.

Criminal Cases (Review)

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the criminal cases review authority to be established; and if he will make a statement. [919]

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimated date by which the body set up for the review of criminal cases will begin its operation; and what criteria will be used to determine the order of review of disputed convictions. [921]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): We expect the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be established around the turn of the year. It will be for the commission to determine its own criteria for the order in which it considers the cases that come before it.

Mr. Mullin: Was the Home Secretary aware when he appointed Sir Frederick Crawford as chairman of the commission that Sir Frederick was a freemason—and not just any old freemason, but one of the leading freemasons in the land? May I say to the Minister that those of us who take an interest in miscarriages of justice have always been a wee bit cynical about the role of the Home Office, but even I was somewhat taken aback to find that the Home Secretary was so daft as to appoint a leading freemason to such a sensitive post?

Mr. Kirkhope: The post was openly advertised. There were 124 applicants, and consideration of them was conducted in a proper manner in accordance with the Nolan procedures, which the House approved recently. Indeed, the appointment was one of the earliest to go through the Nolan procedures. I have no doubt that the appointee, Sir Frederick Crawford, will act with complete integrity and impartiality.

Mr. Gunnell: Is the Minister able to say that the appointment was considered by the officer who has been given responsibility to review public appointments—Sir Len Peach? Is he able to give us Sir Len's view of the appointment? Is the Minister aware that many prisoners, including the sons of some of my constituents, are held

without time limit because they have not agreed that they committed the crimes of which they have been convicted? In many instances they have served a longer term than they would have served if they had pleaded guilty. Will the Minister ensure that the authorities are aware of such cases and that they take into account the time that prisoners, who may be innocent, have spent in gaol?

Mr. Kirkhope: The guidelines of the commission for public appointments were followed. Once the commission is working, I am sure that it will want to set its own timetable for the cases that it will have to consider. Slightly more than 200 cases are awaiting final consideration, and will go to the commission. It is expected that there will be an increase in the number of applications during the commission's first year of operation. Nevertheless, I am sure that it will review the nature of the cases and will have its timetable fixed accordingly.

Dame Jill Knight: May I tell my hon. Friend that many Birmingham Members will strongly resent the slur against Sir Frederick Crawford, who did an excellent job as vice-chancellor of Aston university for many years? Does my hon. Friend accept that what a person chooses to do in his spare time should not be a bar if his abilities are such that he will fulfil correctly a job that is offered to him?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that my hon. Friend is quite right about that. As long as the proper criteria are met in appointments, and they are in accordance with the Nolan procedures, I have no reason to doubt that the chairman will do an excellent job.

Mr. Nicholls: As one who is not a freemason and never intends to be, I find it rather distasteful that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) conducts this campaign against freemasons when, to my certain knowledge—and perhaps that of my hon. Friend as well—many of them are among the most upright people in the community and do a great deal of work for charity as well. It is rather unpleasant that hon. Members should use their position in the House to attack people of that quality and calibre.

Mr. Kirkhope: Our major concern in relation to the commission is to have the best people doing the job. Many hon. Members have called for us to set up a commission. They expect us to set it up in such a way that it will be effective. For it to be effective, we need to ensure that the best people are involved in chairing it and in membership of it. I believe that that will occur.

Queen's Speech

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the measures announced in the Queen's Speech. [922]

Mr. Maclean: The Home Office measures announced in the Gracious Speech have one simple aim—to protect the public. As my right hon. and learned Friend told the


House last week, they represent the most radical attack on crime this century. They have won wide support from the police and the public.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bolton's police force on achieving, against the national trend, a 10 per cent. reduction in crime over the past five months? Should not those figures be published quarterly, as they always used to be?

Mr. Maclean: Greater Manchester police have been successful in reducing crime, as have many other forces, leading in the past three years to the largest fall in crime for 40 years.
If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the success of the Greater Manchester police in reducing crime and in more bobbies on the beat, I am very surprised at his new choice of party. I must give him the Liberal party policy document that I have here, which says:
Putting more police officers on the beat will … have little effect in reducing levels of crime".
If he wants crime in Manchester to keep falling, I hope that he will change his new party's policies.

Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the law and order measures announced in the Queen's Speech, particularly those that will ensure that sentences mean what they say, have been widely welcomed in the constituencies? Is he further aware that, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), that is certainly the case? Sentences must mean what they say, and that is clearly provided for in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key measures in the Crime (Sentencing) Bill—of honesty in sentencing and of minimum mandatory sentences for burglars, drug dealers and serious violent and sexual offenders—have been welcomed and are widely supported by everyone except the Labour party, which dithered and sat on its hands on Monday night, was afraid to vote for them and faced the shame of some of its own members voting against them on Monday night.

Mr. Flynn: Did not the Minister of State expose the absurdity of the Government's attempt to reduce the number of guns when she confessed this afternoon that she did not know how many people who, deprived of their high calibre guns, would transfer to .22 weapons? Does not that mean that, if all of them do that, there will be no reduction whatever in the number of guns in people's homes? Has she not exposed this afternoon the fact that the Bill is entirely futile unless it is improved by the Labour party's amendment?

Mr. Maclean: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He is wrong on many counts. He misquoted my hon. Friend, and handguns will not be held in people's homes. It is clearly our intention that the lesser caliber .22 rimfire handguns will be held in secure gun clubs. It is right to say that it is impossible to forecast whether some people may wish to acquire .22 handguns in future or whether even more .22 handgun owners will decide that it is not worth the hassle of complying with the tough new rules and give up their .22 handguns as well. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to jump to the conclusions that he does.

Rugby Matches (Twickenham)

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the policing of big match days at the Rugby Football Union ground, Twickenham. [923]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am assured by the commissioner that extra officers for the policing of match days at Twickenham will be deployed as and when needed.

Mr. Jessel: I am grateful for that. Rugby football is a sport of great national importance, but is my hon. Friend aware that the combination of the increase in the number of big match days and the growing number of people who arrive by car has inflicted on my constituents who live nearby almost impossible conditions? Will he please ask the commissioner to ensure that the increase in the number of police is as large as possible so that my constituents can get in and out of their homes?

Mr. Sackville: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents, who are, after all, victims of rugby's success. I have sat in a huge traffic jam on the A316 more than once, having the misfortune to arrive at the same time as a match is exiting, and I am aware of the effects of that and of the parking problem to which he referred. I am assured that the police will continue to take what measures they can in order to obviate that distressing problem.

Youth Justice

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to speed up the system of youth justice. [924]

Mr. Kirkhope: We welcome the action being taken by all criminal justice agencies to speed up the process of bringing young offenders to justice—for example avoiding unnecessary adjournments, co-ordinating their approach and sentencing persistent offenders promptly without waiting for other changes to be heard. The review on expediting justice, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned earlier, is also examining this specific issue.

Mrs. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that, despite the painstaking work of the local police, it took more than six months to bring to trial some young hooligans who were terrorising the residents of the Downham estate in my constituency, and that, once tried and convicted, two of them were fined a pathetic £7 and £15 respectively? Does that not send out all the wrong messages to victims and offenders, and is not justice delayed, justice denied?

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sure that the hon. Lady, herself a justice of the peace and a former teacher, will be well aware of the need for us to have a co-ordinated approach to the way in which we deal with young people. Therefore, I hope that she will support the Government's proposals to speed up such matters and bring criminals to justice.
I am pleased to be able to announce to the House that the Magistrates Association and the Justices' Clerks Society have agreed to give guidance that, in future, instead of charges against young people being deferred pending the consideration of other charges that are still being investigated, they will be dealt with there and then in order to ensure that young people understand that they should be dealt with as close to the committal of the crime as possible.

Mr. John Greenway: How soon will the first new secure training unit come on stream? Those units will do a great deal to improve the behaviour of young people convicted of offences. Is it not odd that one of the Opposition's five core pledges is to speed up youth justice, yet they have obstructed the development and construction of secure training units at every turn?

Mr. Kirkhope: The Conservative party has decided to follow that course and I am glad that my hon. Friend is so supportive. I only wish that all Labour-controlled local authorities were doing their best to assist us in opening such centres. Bassetlaw council has decided to block a planning application for such a unit, when it well knows that such a move can only have an adverse impact on our ability to get such units in place and operational as quickly as possible.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister not aware that there is no better, or worse, example of the failure of this Government after 17 years to deal with law and order than the decay and negligence now apparent in the youth justice system? The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) cited, in which after six months those young hooligans were fined a derisory £7 and £15 for terrorising a neighbourhood, is all too typical of the current chaos in the youth justice system. Instead of initiating studies, why does the Minister not impose clear limits on the time that it takes to get such matters to court, and ensure that in no case is the court allowed to issue another warning after previous warnings have been given?

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The weasel words that he is spouting do not fit very neatly into the policies and attitudes of his party. The Labour party has just published another piece of paper on the issue, but what have Labour Members been doing all these years, because they have not supported the Government in their attempts to make the justice system tougher? If the hon. Gentleman wants to help us to deal with such matters, he should support us totally by calling for tougher sentences and by supporting my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Crime Investigation

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to improve the investigation of crimes across police force boundaries. [926]

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals for a national crime squad will significantly enhance the police's ability to investigate organised crime across police force boundaries at home and abroad.

Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that a national crime squad will build on the already

considerable regional success that the police are having in tackling organised drugs crime? Does he agree that that, coupled with my right hon. and learned Friend's tough sentencing proposals, will send a clear message to those who destroy lives by peddling drugs?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national criminal intelligence service and the regional crime squads are a great British police success story. Last year, the total number of drug-related arrests was about 1,400, the total value of confiscated assets was more than £2 million and the total value of street drugs seized by the regional crime squads was more than £250 million. That was their success last year, and they have had even greater success this year. When the Police Bill is on the statute book, we shall have the new national crime squad, which will build on those outstanding successes.

Mr. Miller: Does the Minister accept that one way of improving cross-border activity among the police is the early development of the database HOLMES 2? Will he ensure that the specification for that project includes the most far-reaching data mining processes, which have been used in experiments in Warwickshire and in his authority and by the FBI? Will he also ensure that that specification is out to tender at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. Maclean: I shall ensure that the specifications for HOLMES 2, Phoenix, Quest, the national police information system strategy and the huge automatic fingerprint system are along the lines of what the police want. That is why we are creating PITO, the police information technology organisation, to ensure that the specifications are not drawn up just by politicians, but by the police service according to its needs. With the private finance initiative, we intend to deliver many of those schemes as soon as possible.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thinking behind this welcome new national squad is along the lines of intelligence-led policing pioneered by police forces such as Kent? Does he further agree that it will operate most effectively in conjunction with the measures on minimum sentences for persistent drug dealers that the Government are introducing, apparently against the wishes of the principal Opposition?

Mr. Maclean: I congratulate Kent on its initiatives on intelligence-led policing. The success of NCIS and the national crime squads will be obviated if the Labour party do not support measures to ensure that the most dangerous and persistent criminals who are caught by the police are locked up for sufficiently long. We are aware of the two-faced attitude of the Labour party. No doubt, over the next few months, we shall hear Labour Members boasting that they have supported the Police Bill—which sets up NCIS and PITO—whereas on Monday night most of them sat on their hands. Some of them went through the No Lobby to vote against the measures that will ensure that this country's worst drug dealers are locked up for a minimum of seven years. We should not be surprised at that. They voted against every measure like that in the 1980s as well.

Fireworks

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents which involved fireworks have been reported to the police in each year since 1992. [927]

Mr. Sackville: The police become involved in a wide variety of incidents involving fireworks, such as illegal sale, misuse and nuisance and serious incidents of fire or injury. The statistics on injuries caused by fireworks are collected from hospitals by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Heppell: I am sure that the Minister will want to join the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in expressing his condolences following the death of a constituent of mine, 10-year-old Dale Mitchell, who died because of the misuse of fireworks. Given that a third of firework injuries are not accidents but are caused by illegal misuse, why are there not more prosecutions for illegal misuse, and why are more people not prosecuted for supplying fireworks to under-age children?

Mr. Sackville: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in condoling with all who have been injured. There are restrictions, and there is a wealth of education each year in an attempt to avoid such incidents. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said yesterday, he is conducting a root-and-branch inquiry into the whole issue. There is a good deal of evidence that changes are needed: every injury is an injury too many.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [944]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
This morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. My right hon. Friend has now departed for Bordeaux to attend the Anglo-French summit.

Mr. Garnier: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on the damage recently caused to his property by a gang of criminal thugs, which included two Labour councillors? Will he take this opportunity to contrast the Government's record on law and order with the pathetic performance of the smarmy army on the Opposition Benches? That smarmy army has not even criticised, let alone disciplined, those two Labour councillors.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I must say that, when I looked out of my window, it seemed like old times—the winter of discontent, with the Labour party on the streets; the mobs of the 1980s, with the Labour party on the streets; and then, in the 1990s, Labour councillors on people's private property, causing damage and disruption: and the

characteristic of all three? Not a word of protest from the parliamentary Labour party. Labour Members talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but they do not even have the energy to walk through the Lobbies when we are fighting crime.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why, 50 years ago this week, the Tories voted against the creation of the national health service?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, after 50 years, the health service has been administered and supported by Tory Governments for longer than by Labour Governments. Because of that, we have made it one of the best health services in the world.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not understand that the people simply do not believe the Tories on health? Does he not remember that, before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to cut taxes year on year? They went up year on year. Now the same Prime Minister is promising to increase health spending year on year. Is that not like the tax promise? Should not all Tory pre-election promises carry a Government health warning?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, under this Government, health expenditure has gone up every year. If he really cares about the health service, why will he not, on behalf of his party, now give a commitment to match our pledge to increase, year on year, real-terms expenditure on the health service?

Mr. Prescott: The Deputy Prime Minister fails to understand that our national health service, set up by a Labour Government 50 years ago, was the greatest peacetime achievement of any Government this century. Is not the simple truth this: the British people know that the only way to safeguard our health service for the next 50 years is to elect a Labour Government, and the sooner the better?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The British people know that the Labour party will not give the pledge that the Conservatives have already given. After all, we hear all about windfall taxes. If they are so profitable and so available, why cannot windfall taxes finance the health service? The reason is, of course, that there is not an easy killing of a windfall tax any more than there is a genuine commitment from Labour to the health service.

Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a seminar in my constituency, the chief economist for the National Westminster bank predicted that small businesses would be particularly vulnerable to a minimum wage? He warned that a minimum wage would cost


thousands of jobs in Essex. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will never introduce a minimum wage?

The Deputy Prime Minister: Any fool knows that a minimum wage costs jobs. After all, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the shadow leader of the Labour party, has already said so.

Mr. Prescott: Don't get too excited.

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am always excited by the right hon. Gentleman. The whole House is excited by him. He is an exciting person. Never has someone been so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [945]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago, before my observations about the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given by players of Leeds United, of Leeds rugby league club and of Yorkshire county cricket club to the urgent appeal for funds by Leeds general infirmary for essential equipment, which, it says, it cannot afford because of the national health service funding level? Is it not an absolute scandal that, after 17 years of this Government, that hospital, having closed 40 beds only last month, is forced to beg to survive?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I would overwhelmingly support anyone who sought to raise funds for charitable purposes for the health service. One of the most exciting additional supports to health funding in Britain has come from the idea of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that part of lottery proceeds go to charities in Britain. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Opposition Members are prepared to sneer at charitable giving in Britain. I realise that they would rather tax people into a position where charity was compulsory, as opposed to relying on people's natural instinct to give, but I cannot believe that the purpose of such a generous decision by the various players to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred is designed to turn the health service into a party political matter.

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [946]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend have a chance to speak to the Prime Minister while he is in France preparing for the summit and get him to bring back a

few souvenirs for Opposition Members? I have in mind in particular some recent issues of Le Figaro newspaper, which extolled the virtues of what had happened to French companies that had come to the United Kingdom to invest in British firms, highlighting particularly the low cost base here and the stable, growing economy.

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the attention of the House the remarkable article in Le Figaro. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew my attention to it earlier today. The House will be pleased to know that copies of the article are on their way to this country. For the benefit of many Labour Members, translations will be freely available.

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [947]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bayley: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the new rules that were introduced to curb the abuse by former Conservative Ministers such as Peter Walker and Norman Tebbit, who left the Government and moved to the boardrooms of companies that they privatised while in office? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that the Minister who privatised London's buses—the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—has moved from his boudoir at the Department of Transport to the profitable and sweet embrace of Capital City Bus?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will want to take that question extremely seriously because a most serious allegation has been made against my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). My hon. Friend has not accepted any job with Capital City Bus or any other company. He has consulted the advisory committee on business appointments and, of course, he will follow any advice that that committee gives.
I want to stand back from the regrettable nature of the question asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and say that the only reason why no Labour ex-Ministers are in a similar position is that there have been no Labour ex-Ministers in recent memory. However, when there were Labour ex-Ministers, what was Lord Marsh doing—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was a Tory."] When he was at the Dispatch Box, he was a Labour Minister. He only became a Tory when he realised that we were right and he was wrong. What have Labour Members to say about Edmund Dell, who became head of Guinness? What do they have to say about Lord Varley, the former Energy Secretary? What about Lord Barnett, who is on the boards of a raft of different companies? It is one rule for them and one rule for everybody else—hypocrisy from start to finish.

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [948]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jessel: As next year will be the 50th anniversary of the independence of India, and as relations between India and Britain have never been better, do the Government intend to supplement the Queen's visit to India, the visit of our Prime Minister to India as guest of honour on Republic Day and my right hon. Friend's visit to India to launch the Indo-British partnership initiative, with events in this country to mark the jubilee? Will he bear in mind that a large proportion of Indian people who are resident in Britain are natural supporters of the enterprise economy?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has left out of his list the distinguished role that he has played for 25 years as an officer and chairman of the all-party Indo-British group. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited my noble Friend Lord Cranborne to chair the group to determine how we can progress with such an important anniversary.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have rejected the recommendation of the Employment Committee that, in the unemployment statistics, the Government should include details of the 12 categories excluded from those figures? In those circumstances, does he recognise that the true number of unemployed is not just over 2 million, but nearer 4 million, and that the Government's present figures are a complete sham and a fiddle?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I seem to remember the hon. and learned Gentleman producing reports saying that 100,000 jobs would go in the aftermath of the closure of the mines. Unemployment has fallen every month since.

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [949]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lidington: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports that about 40 per cent. of those leaving the jobless

register are now setting up as self-employed to provide work not only for themselves but for other people? Does he agree that that augurs well for the present and future competitiveness of the country, enabling us to look forward to levels of unemployment continuing to fall in my constituency and throughout the nation?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, of course, right. We have the highest proportion of our population at work of any major European country. The forecasts are that our position will continue to improve. I am delighted to recognise the announcement this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of a significant extension of project work to concentrate particularly on those who have been unemployed for more than two years.

Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 November. [950]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michael: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen advertisements for articles such as the Vindicator knife and the Rambo short sword? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to make it illegal to advertise or offer for sale such weapons in a manner that appears to condone or encourage violence?

The Deputy Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in discussions with Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but those discussions have not led to a simplistic definition that would have enabled the law to be changed. In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend was correct to say that this is a complex matter to which a satisfactory legal outcome has not so far been found. The whole House will be glad of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement yesterday about strengthening police powers of stop and search, particularly of those people who are likely to be carrying knives.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
TUESDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "The BSE Crisis and the Lack of Progress on Lifting the Export Ban on Beef and Beef Products" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Debate on Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Debate on rail privatisation on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 13 November, there will be a debate on the identification of cattle and labelling of beef and beef products in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on cinema and television films in European Standing Committee B.
In the following week, more provisionally, the business will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Proceedings on the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, of which the subject will, no doubt, be announced in due course.
THURSDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the impact of a windfall tax on the privatised utilities on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 22 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that, on Wednesday 20 November, there will be a debate on waste management strategy in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

[Wednesday 13 November:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 10495/96, Identification of Cattle and Labelling of Beef and Beef Products. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-i (1996–97).

European Standing Committee B—European Community Document: 12357/95, Cinema and Television Films. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-ix (1995–96) and HC 36-ii (1996–97).

Wednesday 20 November:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 9651/96, Strategy for Waste Management. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-i (1996–97).]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. In view of today's High Court ruling against the Secretary of State for Social Security—which has implications for the benefit entitlement of many thousands of disabled people and many other claimants—will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to make an urgent statement to the House on that important matter?
Recently, certain Departments have changed the way in which they handle parliamentary questions, with some apparently transferring all key statistical questions to the Treasury. In addition, Ministers' excuses for not answering parliamentary questions are becoming ever more creative, the latest example being an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who was told that the answer to his question
is not suitable for publication".—[Official Report, 22 July 1996; Vol. 282, c. 121.]
Will the Leader of the House initiate discussions on enforcing clearer and consistent guidelines to Departments on the answering of parliamentary questions?
On a totally different matter, the Leader of the House will have seen the extensive list of senior military figures who have expressed concerns about the plight of Hong Kong Gurkhas who are being relocated to Britain and are being forced to leave their wives and children behind. Will Ministers be making statements about a matter which even senior military figures have decided is an inhumane example of defence incompetence?
At this time of year, our attention turns to those who served our country in time of war. Would not it be appropriate for the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on early-day motion 19?
[That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-Service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-Service community, in direct consequence of 'Options for Change', considers that there is now a pressing need for an Ex-Service Affairs Unit within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the care and welfare of ex-Service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to the Royal British Legion's urgent call for such a unit to be established.]
In such a debate, the House would have an opportunity to discuss how to improve the care and welfare of ex-service people and their dependants. On a related matter, will the Leader of the House tell us what arrangements have been made by the House authorities to ensure that next Monday's two-minute silence of remembrance is observed by those who work within Parliament?

Mr. Newton: On the first question about the ruling in the High Court this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is studying the


judgment, and clearly he has not had it very long. In due course, he will no doubt communicate the conclusions that he draws from it.
On parliamentary questions, the hon. Lady may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responding this afternoon to a number of Select Committee reports on those and related matters, including the issue to which she referred. New guidance will be issued and made openly available on drafting answers to parliamentary questions, and she might have a look at it. If she has any further comments, she can make them in the light of that consideration.
As far as the Gurkhas are concerned, the forthcoming withdrawal means that a wide range of issues affecting the Gurkhas' terms of service are being reviewed by the Ministry of Defence. That review is nearly complete, and I am confident that it will produce a fair and equitable package of recommendations that fully address the brigade's concerns.
On early-day motion 19, the Government have made it clear on a number of occasions that we believe that the creation of a special unit responsible for former service people would simply add—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We should have a debate.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman did have a debate on the matter.
The Government believe that that would simply add another tier of administration without improving the present arrangements.
On the arrangements for the observance of the two-minute silence on Monday by those working within the House, perhaps that is a matter for you, Madam Speaker, and not for me.

Madam Speaker: I should like to inform the House that my entire staff in the Speaker's Office will observe the two-minute silence, and I hope that others will follow that example.

Sir Terence Higgins: As Monday's business on gun control may result in a number of legitimate sporting clubs and other organisations going out of business or finding themselves unable to meet the financial commitments into which they have entered, will my right hon. Friend consider changing the wording of the money resolution, which would seem to rule out not only the possibility of such organisations being paid compensation, but even the possibility of a debate on such a subject?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend might well make that point in the debate on Tuesday. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), which is important, will the Leader of the House confirm that a money resolution in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is unamendable by the House? It is essential for him to consider broadening the terms of the resolution—only he has the power to do so. Otherwise,

property the possession of which becomes unlawful",
referred to in the resolution, will restrict the debate and consideration of possible compensation for anything other than the guns.

Mr. Newton: I have already undertaken to draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall do so.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the call for a two-minute silence on Monday? It will certainly be observed by my branch of the Royal British Legion.
May we also have a debate on planning procedures, so that I may draw to the attention of the House the great concern of the people of Greenford about an enormous planning application for Greenford green, granted by Ealing council, which will hugely damage the local community by drawing in large amounts of unwanted traffic, as well as destroying jobs in other parts of my constituency?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend said about observance of the two-minute silence. I shall certainly be trying to do so. On the latter point, the right course would be for me to bring my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Leader of the House will be aware, the Social Security (Claims and Payments Etc.) Amendment Regulations 1996 have reduced or withdrawn the mobility allowance from large numbers of severely disabled people, not least those with severe learning difficulties. Is it not quite wrong that we have had no opportunity to debate those regulations? When shall we be debating them?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman has raised such matters several times, as have other hon. Members. I am not in a position to add to what I have said before.

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I revert to the question about compensation raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)? The Leader of the House kindly said that he would draw the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary, and for that we are grateful. Could he go a stage further and ensure that a statement clarifying the position is made in the House on Monday, so that we know what that position is?

Mr. Newton: I shall draw that suggestion also to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House made a welcome suggestion, by saying that we shall be able to debate rail privatisation and highlight the many abuses, such as the award of £2.25 million in success payments to two City firms.
Will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consider what is happening to answers to parliamentary questions? Frankly, they are becoming almost farcical. In recent times, I have received one answer saying that it was too


soon to say and another that was factually inaccurate, which I drew to the attention of the agency head, but which still has not been corrected in the Official Report. Will the Leader of the House take that problem seriously? It is not simply a matter of reminding people that they ought to behave sensibly. The answers are misleading Parliament and it is getting beyond a joke.

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Lady knows that that is the sort of matter that I and the Government take seriously, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been working on it in the way that I mentioned. It is difficult for me to go beyond that in my response, as the hon. Lady has not given me details of the questions that concern her. If she will provide me with such details, I shall see whether I can do something to help.

Rev. William McCrea: Can the Leader of the House tell me when he might find time in the programme to discuss the important issue of the underfunding of the health service in Northern Ireland, which has led to the closure of many wards and has meant that many people in the Province have failed to have the major operations that they urgently need?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can undertake to find immediate time for a debate on that matter, but I can draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is due to answer questions here this day week.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: With regard to what Madam Speaker and the Leader of the House said about the two-minute silence on Monday, would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have words with the House authorities about the annunciator system, to ensure that people know when it is 11 am, so that tours and other activities could come to a standstill, to enable people to pay appropriate respect at that time?

Mr. Newton: As I have already drawn the matter to the attention of the ultimate House authority, to whom I genuflect once again, I am sure that you will consider that suggestion, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent early debate to allow the attention of the House to be drawn to the fact that there are deteriorating road conditions on the A2 trunk road, as it runs through my constituency in north-west Kent, and to enable us to endorse the high-profile campaign being run by the Kentish Times group of newspapers demanding that safety features be incorporated on the road as soon as possible, to minimise accidents and fatalities?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will study my hon. Friend's remarks with great care.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the questions raised by my hon. Friends about the Government answering questions, is the Leader of the

House aware of the alarming events of the past few days, when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) asked for statistics on lottery pay-outs, constituency by constituency? He was refused that information, so he decided to find it out for himself. The cost was not disproportionate: he estimates that it cost £15. It showed that there was a great lottery fiddle, inasmuch as Derbyshire authorities were not getting a fair crack of the whip.
I drew that to the attention of the House at the beginning of the year, but nothing has been done—in fact, the situation has got worse. It is high time that different regions and different constituencies had a fair crack of the whip in the pay-outs.

Mr. Newton: There were two points there—one rather better than the other. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage recognises that the request for information could have been met within the £450 limit, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State is writing to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about that today; so the first point was fair. For the rest, frankly, the hon. Gentleman is on rather less safe ground. The plain fact is that lottery awards are made by people independent of Ministers; they are invited to take into account various criteria for determining the pattern of awards, and those criteria, as I understand it, are never geographical but based on quality of project.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Can my right hon. Friend ensure that a Minister of the Crown makes a statement to the House after the European Court gives its judgment on the United Kingdom's appeal against the working time directive next Tuesday? The judgment will have the most profound implications for working practices, for employment law, for competitiveness and for what should be Britain's internal social affairs. Can we have a guarantee that we shall be able to question a Minister of Her Majesty's Government about it?

Mr. Newton: There are two points. First, I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of the matter, and he will be well aware of the views expressed by the United Kingdom Government. Secondly, I shall bear in mind his request for a statement.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I remind the Leader of the House that I raised with him last Thursday the introduction of regulations on the concessionary television licence scheme? I did so after I had extended the normal courtesy of ringing the Department of National Heritage to say that I intended to raise the matter. A week has gone by, and I have heard nothing from the Department. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to say whether the regulations will be introduced before Christmas.

Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in warning me that he intended to raise the matter again. That has enabled me to be in a better position than I was last week, and I can inform him that I understand that the Department of National Heritage intends to lay regulations before the end of the year and is about to write to him about the matter. It may be of interest to the House


to know that the new regulations will not only deal with sheltered housing, which is the hon. Gentleman's focus, but clarify the treatment of caravans.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend will recall that last week I asked for an urgent debate on the recent Social Security Committee report on unfunded pensions in Europe. I should again like to call for such a debate, because in Hansard of 6 November there is a question headed "Public Pension Liabilities" from my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sought to answer some of the points. We seem to be engaged in a debate, because I notice that the Chairman of the Social Security Committee has given notice of a question calling for a response to the report. I urge my right hon. Friend to think carefully about that and urge his right hon. and hon Friends to hold a debate rather than conducting so important a discussion across the pages of Hansard.

Mr. Newton: I think that I have demonstrated over the years that I take account of requests for debates, but I am not immediately able to respond this afternoon. I pointed out last week that we are not many weeks away from a substantial debate over several days on the Budget, when such matters would be in order.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 105?
[That this House notes the continued suffering of the people of the Sudan and the Reverend Dr Dick Rogers' 40 day bread and water sympathy vigil outside the Foreign Office; encourages Her Majesty's Government to become actively committed to the pursuit of a fair settlement of the war in Sudan as part of a multi-national effort to that end, with consideration given to the appointment of a special envoy; and calls on both sides of the conflict to enter into negotiations that embrace all parties in the country, with a view to the acceptance of the subsequent settlement by the said parties.]
The motion calls for peacekeeping in Sudan and draws attention to the 40-day vigil in Whitehall by the Rev. Dr. Dick Rogers. I urge Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to keep a closer watch on what is happening in the Sudan and to take a lead in bringing people together towards peace.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government share his concern for the people of Sudan as expressed in the motion. He may know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office explained in answer to questions on 30 October that we do not believe that a British initiative would be fruitful at the moment.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on firework safety, so that the House can assist my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in the review of firework regulations to which he referred yesterday? I ask that because of the plea in my local paper, the Bromley and Hayes News Shopper, by the brother of Steve Tinker, the man who was tragically killed last Saturday in a firework accident.

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate, although my hon. Friend might like to consider

the Wednesday morning possibilities. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is well aware of the widely expressed concerns about the availability of certain sorts of firework and is reviewing firework controls and the availability of bangers.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 151, the contents of which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
[That this House notes that in response to a parliamentary question for written answer by the honourable Member for North East Derbyshire, the Department of National Heritage has supplied a computer disc to the Library which details, by parliamentary constituency, each National Lottery award made up to 30th September 1996; further notes that a list compiled by the Library from this disc shows the total amounts awarded in each United Kingdom parliamentary constituency listed in descending order with the top award of £201,480,455 and in 651st place the bottom award of only £12,000; is dismayed that there is such a massive maldistribution of awards with the bulk of awards being skewed towards a small group of constituencies and to certain parts of the United Kingdom, as illustrated by the fact that the three constituencies in north eastern Derbyshire all fall within the bottom 10 per cent. of places on the list with North East Derbyshire placed 587th, Bolsover 616th and Chesterfield 628th; further calls upon the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the National Lottery is obliged to correct this disgraceful state of affairs and to operate formulas based on equity and need, subject to regional, county and district democratic input; and regrets that the National Heritage Minister claimed it would be of disproportionate cost—defined as £450—to rank the awards per constituency when this operation only cost the Library £15.]
The Library now has a list detailing how much lottery money each constituency had received by 30 September. The sums range from £201 million at the top to £12,000 at the bottom. That is a massive maldistribution, whatever considerations are given to the needs of particular areas. Should we not therefore have a full debate about the national lottery and the way in which funds are distributed, so that they can be better related to the people who purchase lottery tickets and so that some areas are not almost excluded by the current provisions?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might like to consider trying to raise that matter on a Wednesday. I cannot add to what I said before. The lottery money is distributed by independent bodies according to the merits of the proposals that are made and I think that that is right.

Mr. John Carlisle: May I say respectfully to my right hon. Friend that he showed some irritation in answering the questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the compensation for those who suffer through the intended legislation on firearms? Does he accept that that legislation is not worthy of a Conservative Government, and that it will affect thousands of innocent people, cause the loss of jobs and put businesses out of business? The money resolution as


drafted will not cover that problem. Will he ensure that it is changed before we come to Tuesday's debate, so that the people involved are fully compensated for a loss of business incurred through no fault of their own?

Mr. Newton: I must say that I do not think that I betrayed the slightest sign of irritation when responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and others. I simply said—as calmly and straightforwardly as I could, given that it is clearly not a matter that I can decide at the Dispatch Box—that I would draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am bound to say, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has irritated me somewhat.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I hope that I do not irritate the Leader of the House. Will the House, or any of its Committees, be considering the annual report of the prisons ombudsman? He said that the Prison Service withheld vital files and lied in one case, but instead of taking appropriate action, the Home Secretary reduced the prisons ombudsman's. powers, so that he can now obtain only the files that the Prison Service wants to give him—indeed, he cannot check on the Home Secretary's and other Ministers' roles, either. Surely, that is not the right way to proceed, and the House should consider the ombudsman's report.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will himself consider the report very carefully.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time, as soon as possible, for the House to discuss the impact of the 48-hour directive and the minimum wage on employment and the economy of his country? The 48-hour directive is totally impracticable and a lunatic suggestion to be imposed on this country. On the minimum wage, we are discussing not only a level of pay below which people would not drop, but the massive impact of differentials throughout the economy. Both are job-destroying measures and both are supported by the two Opposition parties, and that will not go unnoticed.

Mr. Newton: I have already indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that the Government are aware of those concerns. I cannot add to my earlier answer, but I take note of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate a matter of great importance that was recently the subject of a lead story in "GP News", in which it was revealed that one in four of all elderly patients who were admitted to a hospital in Gloucester were suffering from the misuse of medicinal drugs? As 40 per cent. of all hospital admissions are elderly patients, does that not show that there is an extraordinary over-prescription of medicinal drugs? Most of those people were taking up to six different drugs for non-life-threatening conditions. If deaths from medicinal drugs continue at the present rate,

within four years more people will die from misuse of medicines than die from all road traffic accidents. Is that not a matter of prime concern to the House?

Mr. Newton: The Government have sought to tackle issues of over-prescribing for a long time—certainly going back to my time as Minister for Health. Ministers continue to take such matters very seriously and I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to their attention.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate, or draw to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for National Heritage, my early-day motion 154, which was published today?
[That this House continues to honour, respect and cherish the name of Mahatma Ghandi; takes note that in a will made in 1940 the Mahatma left all his property and the copyright to all his writings, published or unpublished, to the Navajivan Trust, which he had set up in 1929, with absolute rights vested in the Trust, the will being duly probated after his assassination in 1948; that Mr. Kalyanam, an employee in 1948 in the office of the Mahatma, offered some of his papers for sale by Sotheby's who commendably refused to put them on sale; that the papers are now advertised for sale by auction by Phillips on 14th November, which would cause a sense of outrage in India; and calls upon Phillips forthwith to withdraw these papers from sale and to take steps to ensure the safe return of these objects as soon as may be to their rightful owners, the Navajivan Trust in India.]
Action should be taken to ensure that Mahatma Ghandi's own papers, which appear to have been purloined by a former employee of the Mahatma's, either before his assassination in 1948 or shortly thereafter, and which have been placed on sale to be auctioned by Phillips in London one week from today, on 14 November, can be safely recovered and returned to their rightful owners in India.

Mr. Newton: I should say that, as far as I know, that issue has not been raised with us by the Indian Government, either in London or, to our knowledge, in Delhi. However, I am told that the Indian Government have supported attempts to have the papers withdrawn from auction and that the sale to which my hon. Friend referred may not now take place.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House seen the feature in tonight's Evening Standard about poverty in London, which is based on the report produced by the London Research Centre, "The Capital Divided"? The report uses only official Government statistics and, as the Evening Standard says, shows that poverty in London is worse than anywhere else in Britain and spreading like a cancer. Is that not an indictment of Government policies as applied to the capital city over the past 17 years? Could we please have a debate on London? There is a Minister responsible for London, and it is about time we held him accountable for what is going on in this city.

Mr. Newton: I have not seen the feature article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall ensure that I look at it, and I am sure that colleagues will do so. I shall keep in mind the idea of a debate on London; I hope that,


in return, the hon. Gentleman will keep in mind the huge amount that the Government have done—not least through the London Docklands development corporation and the huge infrastructure projects that are going on in London—to regenerate the city and provide a firmer basis for employment.

Mr. Max Madden: With the peace process hanging by a thread, will the Leader of the House persuade the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House next week about two matters—first, about how quickly Sinn Fein would be allowed to enter all-party talks should there be a further cessation of violence by the IRA, and secondly, about confidence-building measures, especially regarding the treatment of prisoners from both communities? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is imperative that that statement is made to the House rather than to any other forum elsewhere?

Mr. Newton: Of course I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am bound to say, however, that it seems to me that our position on the talks and a settlement is clear and on the record.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), may I ask that a statement be made to the House about the report by Dr. Brian Caddy on the use of questionable forensic evidence in terrorist cases? May I ask that, in such a statement, there be specific reference to the interviews, which I understand have now been concluded, by Home Office officials with Padraig MacFhloinn in prison? He has accepted responsibility for the Warrington bombings and made a formal statement about the non-involvement of my constituent, John Kinsella.
If, in the absence of any forensic evidence and any other substantive evidence, those interviews confirm statements that John Kinsella knew nothing about the contents of the holdall that he was left, will his sentence and conviction be reviewed immediately?

Mr. Newton: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising what is obviously an important constituency case to him. He will understand that I am not in a position to comment from the Dispatch Box this afternoon on the detail, but I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is drawn to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I take the Lord President back to the request of the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on ex-service men and women's affairs? On 1 July 1994, I instituted a private Member's motion and debate, which was approved unanimously by the House of Commons, calling for a Minister responsible for ex-service people's affairs. Since then, there have been early-day motions signed by 279 Members from all parties in the House of Commons, asking the Government to look at that possibility and to think about it again.
This is not a party matter; hon. Members from all parts of the House want the Government to reconsider it. There are 1.5 million members of the Royal British Legion, and many hundreds of thousands more in the Royal Air Forces Association and the Royal Naval Association, who are bewildered and dismayed by the Prime Minister's belief that, uniquely, the United Kingdom does not need a Minister responsible for veterans, whereas most countries, including our former adversaries, the United States and Commonwealth countries, have one.

Mr. Newton: Of course I accept that that is not a marked party matter. I have not treated it as such, and nor has anyone else, to my knowledge, but it is a matter of judgment to decide the best way of providing the help and support that we all wish to give to our ex-service men. On that front, I cannot add to what I said earlier.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend reads the Evening Standard report on poverty, will he note the extraordinary correlation that the worst examples appear to occur, time and again, in boroughs that have been controlled and run by the Labour party? Is that not a reflection on Labour's approach to policies to help business and encourage employment, and is it not a further example of Labour's record in government in the 1990s?

Mr. Newton: Had I wished to he more aggressive than is my wont with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I might have added to what I said earlier about the London Docklands development corporation by saying that, until we took that out of the hands of the Labour local authorities in the area, nothing happened; had we not done so, docklands would still be derelict.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Was not the question asked by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) a gross misrepresentation of the facts? He is playing with statistics, and he knows it. Was the Leader of the House in the Chamber yesterday when I expressed my concerns about the unemployment statistics that have been published in relation to Workington constituency? I do not believe those figures. I know that they are not true; they are false figures. I asked yesterday for a house-to-house survey to be carried out in my constituency, so that the real figures can be produced.
May we have a statement at the Dispatch Box about how the figures are being compiled? If not, may we have a debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House can press Ministers on the compilation of unemployment statistics?

Mr. Newton: I regret that I was not in the House yesterday when the hon. Gentleman asked his question, and it had not been drawn to my attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is due to answer questions on Wednesday next week.

Copyright

Madam Speaker: We now come to motion No. 1. I call Mr. Secretary Lang—I am so sorry, Mr. Ian Taylor, whom I know very well. He is a most important Minister.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 11th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Madam Speaker, you quite raised my pulse rate with that instant promotion.
The regulations implement two European Community copyright directives on satellite and cable broadcasting, directive 93/83, and on rental, lending and other rights related to copyright, directive 92/100, and also aspects of directive 93/98.
The directives harmonise rights in areas such as the rental and lending of copyright works, other uses of works, such as broadcasting of sound recordings and cross-frontier satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission. Most of those rights already exist in the United Kingdom, and the directives in many cases raise the standards of protection elsewhere in the European Union to those that exist here. So, although the directives require changes to UK law, they will be of substantial benefit to important UK industries, such as the record industry, by establishing similar and improved rights throughout the European Union.
Many, often complex, changes are nevertheless needed to bring UK law fully into line with the directives. The main changes include, first, the extension of rental and lending rights to all copyright works, whereas at present they apply only to books, computer programmes, films and sound recordings. Secondly, they give authors and performers rental and lending rights in films and sound recordings, which at present only producers have. Thirdly, they give performers rights in relation to broadcasting and public performance of sound recordings.
Extensive consultation with all interested parties—about 200 representative bodies—has been undertaken, and we have tried to find a balance that is fair to them all, which means, inevitably, that not everyone is completely satisfied.
That consultation and the complexity of the provisions has, regrettably, led to delays in implementation of the directives, which is now overdue. Implementation of the rental directive should have taken place by 1 July 1994 and that of the cable and satellite directive by 1 January 1995. We are not alone in the EU in being late. I apologise to the House, but the delay has been due to the complexity of the matter.
As there are many issues on which I could now address the House, which would take considerable time, and as I would be interested to hear which of the many aspects interest Members, I will undertake to respond to all the points raised, if I catch your eye, Madam Speaker, at the end of the debate.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I thank the Minister for his brief—I am tempted to say terse—outline of a statutory instrument, which, as I understood it,

implemented three directives: the rental directive, the cable and satellite directive, and residual parts of the duration directive which were not dealt with when that directive was substantially passed into British law.
I make it clear at the outset that the Opposition do not intend to vote against the regulations. However, it is equally clear that there is profound dissatisfaction with the way in which they have been drafted. That is obvious from the various representations that I have received. It is clear that, in dealing with copyright, the Government have been uniquely successful in once again bringing together different organisations that historically have very different perspectives but are consistently concerned about the way in which the proposals affect both individuals and the industries in which they work.
My first general question to the Minister is whether it is appropriate to deal with three different directives in a single, and inevitably complex, statutory instrument. Why could we not have dealt with the directives separately and had three separate statutory instruments dealing with each aspect at the European level? Alternatively, given the delay that we have faced, why not deal with all outstanding copyright matters in a comprehensive piece of primary legislation?
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the main criticism levelled by the various organisations affected is that they do not have the opportunity to amend the proposals. There are detailed points of criticism that cannot be dealt with in this kind of debate. Given the lack of any substantive legislation from the Department of Trade and Industry, I am sure that the Minister would welcome the opportunity to do something substantial as he whiles away his time before the general election.
My second general concern is with timing. The Minister has already made the point that the legislation is woefully overdue. The statutory instrument was laid on 19 July this year and is therefore more than two years late, as the directives' implementation date was 1 July 1994. What is the reason for the delay? I do not make that point simply to dwell upon the lack of timeliness or competence on the part of the Minister's Department, but it is relevant to the general question of whether the legislation is needed today.
We are debating directives that were agreed in 1992. Therefore, given my understanding of the processes of the European institutions, it seems reasonable to suggest that the directives were drafted in the mid-1980s—probably based on a perceived need in the early 1980s. Given the pace of technological change, the real question for the Minister is whether we should be addressing perceived needs in the early 1990s and those of the next century rather than conducting an historical debate about proposals that were drafted in an earlier age.
As the Minister said, the principal purpose of the rental directive is to provide new rights for creators and performers to earn additional revenue from rentals and lending. My third query is whether the statutory instrument succeeds in translating that aim properly into law. In the explanatory recitals, the directive states:
Whereas the creative and artistic work of authors and performers necessitates an adequate income as a basis for further creative and artistic work… Whereas the equitable remuneration must take account of the importance of the contribution of the authors and performers concerned to the phonogram or film".
The directive's specific purpose is to ensure that the rights of performers are properly recognised in law.
Performers are clearly concerned that, far from generating new income for them, the statutory instrument is likely to place an inappropriate financial burden on the kinds of small businesses operated by many creative individuals who should benefit from the rental directive. There is concern about the expenditure likely to be incurred by authors and performers having to refer constantly to the Copyright Tribunal and to the courts as a result of this statutory instrument.
There is particular anxiety about the requirement for authors and performers to give notice before 1 January 1997—which is not far away—of any intention to exercise their right to remuneration where rental arises from agreements concluded before July 1994. That places an unnecessary burden upon them in terms of time and cost. The Minister might explain how notification will be given. Will it cover all the agreements before July 1994 or only those made between July 1992, when the rental directive was adopted, and July 1994?
Similar anxieties are expressed on behalf of performers about the meaning of equitable remuneration. How is that to be calculated? Would it not be appropriate for authors and performers to have the right to information, to allow them to calculate the basis for that which is meant by equitable remuneration?
The fairness of such payments from users, and broadcasters especially, to performers is generally speaking adjudged by statutory tribunals or courts, which examine the value of the right to the users, the extent and profitability of the use and the economic circumstances and prospects of the user. The formula in the statutory instrument does allow performers, individually or collectively, to take the user to the Copyright Tribunal on these questions, but only the copyright owner of the record.
A clear criticism of the proposals is that United Kingdom performers will be the only performers in the European economic area, not just the European Union, in such a disadvantaged position. Is that consistent with the intention that is behind the rental directive to provide a consistent approach across both the European Union and the European economic area?
It seems clear that article 182 is not properly translated into British law by regulation 20. The statutory instrument provides for the performer to exercise his or her rights to equitable remuneration solely against the record company and not against the user. Now that I have the Minister's full attention, I should be grateful if he takes up that matter. The statutory instrument fails to ensure that it is the user who should pay the equitable remuneration for the use of a record in any communication to the public. That is different from the arrangement in any other European member state.
A practical problem for performers is obtaining appropriate remuneration due to them in other countries. They clearly have a legal right under the directive, but they believe that it will be difficult and expensive to enforce. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform us of any steps that he might be prepared to take to assist United Kingdom-based performers to secure the rights to which they are entitled, given that it is his legislation that is responsible for causing the difficulty that I have outlined.
All other European countries allow the collective administration of performers' rights as against users' collective organisations. In the UK, only record

companies and their organisations will be involved. That means that performers will be placed in an inferior position compared with their continental counterparts. It means also that the United Kingdom is out of step with every other system in the European Union. As it is United Kingdom music that is widely played and listened to throughout Europe, it is unfortunate that we are not giving our performers and creators of music in the UK the same rights as are available to performers from other countries.
It is clear that the identification of users and their uses of records is relatively straightforward. Performers, however, will face considerable difficulty in identifying the owners of the copyright in all the records used and in enforcing their rights against dormant or insolvent owners.
A further problem with the translation of article 182 concerns section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Article 182 clearly requires payment of equitable remuneration by the user if a record is used in broadcasting or for any other communication to the public. That is both direct and indirect broadcasting. Section 72 provides that when a broadcast is shown or played in public to an audience that has not paid an admission fee, there is no infringement of copyright in any sound recording which is included in the broadcast.. That limitation does not apply to the rights of authors, and it is almost unprecedented in other European countries.
I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why it is possible to introduce the statutory instrument without dealing with section 72 of the 1988 Act, because it is clear that the directive deals with both direct and indirect broadcasting. Indeed, if section 72 were to continue, there would be a continuing cost to performers. To repeat the point, if the purpose of the statutory instrument and the directive on which it is based is to provide greater revenue for performers, it seems unfortunate that that aspect has not been dealt with.
Indeed, if we pursue the statutory instrument without some later amendment, the United Kingdom will be out of step with all other European countries. Only the United Kingdom, Ireland and Greece have a section 72 exemption or its equivalent. It is significant—I hope the Minister will agree—that Denmark used to have a similar exemption but repealed it on the basis that it was necessary to implement the rental directive properly and to meet its Community obligations. There will be important economic consequences—estimated to be in the order of £80 million loss of income to performers and rights holders—as a result of failing to repeal section 72.
There is a further area in which performers' and authors' rights are not protected in the statutory instrument in the way in which the rental directive at least contemplated. Article 5(6) of the rental directive includes an optional provision for member states to provide for a presumption of transfer of authors' rental rights to the film producer. In regulation 12 of the statutory instrument, the Government have chosen to implement this option. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why it was not possible to leave the assignment of the copyright to be freely negotiated between the two sides. Why is it necessary to rely on the presumption in the statutory instrument? How can that be reconciled with the requirement of the 1988 Act, which says that copyright assignments must be in writing?
Regulation 14 establishes the right to equitable remuneration payable by a person to whom the right is transferred or any successor in title. One of the problems for those engaged in the film business is that many film companies are formed simply for the purpose of producing a particular film, after which they have no continuing existence. Moreover, not all of them are successful, and clearly there are difficulties in enforcing rights against bankrupt organisations. Would it not be more sensible—this is the practical suggestion made by those affected—to allow that right to be exercisable against all those who benefit commercially from the rental process, including the rental outlets?
I have a final technical question concerned with satellite broadcasts, in particular the way in which the statutory instrument affects CNN International and other satellite channels that use similar means of distributing their programmes. CNN International is edited in Atlanta. It is then transmitted to British Telecom in the United Kingdom, which simultaneously uplinks the signal to the Astra satellite for pan-European broadcast. Paragraph 6 of the statutory instrument deals with satellite broadcasts made from non-European economic area states that do not provide a specified level of protection.
The concern is that, since the United States would not provide the specified level of protection, this clause would operate in relation to CNN International's broadcasts. That would mean, according to the rules, that BT, which provides CNN International's uplink facility, would be defined as "the person making the CNNI broadcast", pursuant to the proposed section 6(A)2(b) of the statutory instrument. Because of that definition and the rather artificial way in which it is constructed, the anxiety is that the statutory instrument could be interpreted as defining BT not only as the maker of the broadcast for infringement purposes but as the owner of the copyright in the broadcast. That is clearly not the directive's intention, but I, and I am sure CNN, would be grateful if the Minister would clarify that.
I have made a series of technical observations about the statutory instrument's drafting, but it is necessary, in conclusion, to make some more general observations about the way in which the Government have approached the important area of copyright.
The United Kingdom clearly has an opportunity here to make a significant contribution to Europewide and worldwide technological initiatives aimed at establishing secure electronic trading and providing protection for intellectual property of all kinds. As we move into a digital world, copyright protection will be crucial to allowing our industries, based on the development of intellectual property rights, to flourish and to compete around the world.
It is unfortunate that, in drafting the statutory instrument based on the directives, the United Kingdom has not been able to provide an approach consistent with that of our European partners, and we could not blame them if they looked elsewhere when standards were being decided. It will be unfortunate if we have domestic legislation which appears to have been drafted in such a way as to circumvent certainly the spirit of the directives when later we want the co-operation of our European

partners in drafting legislation that is to the benefit and protection of performers and creators based in the United Kingdom.
As I have said, it is unfortunate that we are debating matters now which could have been dealt with many years earlier, when the pace of technological change has brought up many different issues. The key issue that we have not yet faced is digital distribution. That should be the underlying issue. Is the Minister confident that the existing copyright legislation will be sufficient to deal with the rather more complicated intellectual property that will arise as a result of the digital distribution of a wide variety of intellectual content?
Those matters will be discussed shortly at a conference in Geneva as part of the World Intellectual Property Organisation's debate. It is trying to establish standards now which will affect the way in which digital distribution develops. It is clear that the content providers, those who are responsible for creation and performing, will not be willing to see their talent exploited unless they are properly protected by the legislation that needs to be brought forward.
I hope that the Minister will tell the House that the Government are actively pursuing the matter, are concerned to see a proper protection for intellectual rights, and are not simply belatedly enforcing legislation agreed at the European level which is looking increasingly out of date.

Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) made two suggestions to the Minister about potential ways forward. One was to deal separately with the different parts of the statutory instrument stemming from three different directives, and the other was that the Government should bring forward comprehensive primary legislation on the matter. I shall seek to explain why my preference is strongly towards my hon. Friend's second proposal.
During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill in the previous parliamentary Session, I suggested to the Minister, and I think that he agreed with me, that our parliamentary process has a fundamental weakness when it comes to dealing with matters such as this where the technology is moving so incredibly quickly. The context of that remark in relation to intellectual property is obvious. Given the development of digital signals, it is easy to envisage ways in which people will be able to bypass attempts to protect copyright, as readily available technologies are open to misuse.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that in a speech at the opening session of Telework 96 in Vienna on Monday I extended to all Parliaments my criticism of the Government's attempts to deal with this problem. All owners of intellectual property face a major problem in the digital age.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield cited an extremely good example of the problems we face when he referred to the CNN equation. The same applies to all existing broadcasters. One can also envisage the existence of a rogue broadcaster—the next century's version of Radio Caroline. It would be easy to bypass any attempt to regulate copyright on a world basis simply by setting up just offshore and buying a piece of satellite space.
This is a serious issue, and it has enormous implications for musicians, authors and writers of software, and for every other signal that can conceivably be transmitted in a digital form. The important discussions that are taking place in Geneva through WIPO—an appalling acronym—should be uppermost in our minds.
Will the Minister tell us what contribution the Government are making to those important discussions? How will we persuade not only the countries that try to restrict incoming signals, but those that take no notice of existing copyright regulations on hard copy to participate in a regulatory regime that will work? As is often the case, we will end up having a local debate on whether one nation or another in the European Union has failed to address its responsibilities. We will not deal with the underlying problem, which is of enormous proportions: the ability of a nation or a company to bypass any attempts to regulate.
Other matters that are currently subject to directive considerations overlap into this area—some slightly and some significantly. Data protection must be carefully considered. How do we ensure that the two-way trade between ownership and protection of information is properly balanced? In another capacity, I sent a strongly worded recommendation to Members of the European Parliament on the draft directive on telecommunications data protection urging them to slow down or, preferably, to stop that directive. It strikes me as a very uncompetitive approach, which, although it may be to the advantage of Deutsche Telekom, certainly will not benefit companies in this country.
All those aspects are linked. The missing part of the equation is a strategic overview from the Government. I do not claim that the issue is simple, and the Minister will understand that I am not trying to score a cheap political point; but we have a real problem. Although we pick away on a piecemeal basis at the various issues—all of which stem from the power that will rest with the potential abuser of digital information, and all of which are closely linked—there seems to be no over-arching Government strategy.
Nor is there such a strategy from the European Union, whence the directives came. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain in detail what representations have been made in respect of procedures currently taking place in the European Union—and, indeed, in the Geneva talks, which are of the utmost importance.
If we fail to address those important matters, we shall do a massive disservice to a very large revenue earner in this country. It is not simply finding a bureaucratic solution to satisfy the whims of the drafters in Brussels that should concern us; we should be worrying about how properly to protect the important people to whom we owe so much—the authors of music, software and all sorts of technical journals whose copyright will be at risk if we do not solve the overall problem.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to those of us who are just a little worried about the fact that we are rushing headlong, at an unstoppable pace, into a new era of communication with one missing element: a Government strategy that will make it work.

Mr. Tony Banks: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has already mentioned this point, but I should like the

Minister to comment. It relates to matters arising from a letter that I received from Dennis Scard, general secretary of the Musicians Union. I know that the Minister has corresponded with the union, and, indeed, with hon. Members who written to his Department following representations received from it.
The union makes it clear that
some changes have been made in response to our representations'",
and it is obliged to the Minister for that. It regards those changes, however, less as concessions than
as an indication that the earlier drafts did not meet the objectives of the Directive or the realities of the situation.
The general secretary expresses his union's disappointment that that is still the case
in the key issue of who the performers' right is against and the equality of that right compared to the record producer.
The letter continues:
The Minister concedes that the term 'equitable remuneration' means a fair payment in relation to the use of the record. The fairness of such payments from users—(e.g. broadcasters) to rights owners (e.g. performers) is judged between the parties in every country, including the UK, by statutory tribunals or courts which examine the value of the right to the user, the extent of profitability of the use, and the economic circumstances and prospects of the user.
The union makes it clear:
The formula adopted in the Statutory Instrument does not, however, allow the performers, individually or collectively, to take the user to the Copyright Tribunal on these matters, but only the copyright owner in the record. UK performers will be the only performers in the EEA in this disadvantaged position.
Is that the Minister's reading of the position? If so, and if performers in the UK will be treated differently from any other performers in the European Economic Area, will the Minister kindly reconsider the matter and find out what he can do about it? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Ian Taylor: This has been a constructive debate about some complex issues and about the future of the digital age. I shall try to touch on the questions and the issues of the future.
The directives are brought together in the statutory instrument because they closely interrelate. They were not tabled by the European Union at the same time, hut, by the time we got around to it, they affected the same Act—the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988. Frankly, it was just more efficient to do it this way. We should also bear it in mind that we consulted with the same dramatis personae on each of the directives. It was easier to consult on the directives at the same time than to do so consecutively, and the directives are overdue, largely because we have had such a complex and lengthy consultation. These are difficult matters to draft into UK law, as has been recognised by the hon. Members for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
I know that the Musicians Union was worried about whether we had fully implemented the directives. There is a difference of judgment on what the directives obliged us to do and who we should target in relation to the use of exercisable rights. Only record producers in the UK have had rights enabling them to obtain royalties from users. We do not consider it desirable to disturb the traditional relationship between producers and end users.


Granting performers rights would have disturbed the traditional pattern and would have meant, in effect, restructuring producers' rights. We felt that not disturbing that traditional relationship was the best way forward, and that has been reflected in our interpretation of the directives.
The Musicians Union also raised with us the issue of the percentage share. Performers are granted a 50 per cent. share, usually in respect of traditional forms of broadcasting and performance. The rights that are being granted in the UK will apply also to newer forms of exploitation that are emerging, but that have yet to become established in practice. In those changing circumstances, we are reluctant to prescribe a share.
This deals with another point that has been mentioned in all three speeches. We must try to anticipate changes in the market. It is clear that 50 per cent. would not necessarily be appropriate in relation to all the future technological means of delivery. For traditional uses of recordings, however, we understand that producers have already said that they are willing to share royalties on a 50:50 basis. Clearly, therefore, other means of distribution would be subject to negotiation.
Further questions were asked about the difficulty in obtaining payments from other European Union states unless rights in Britain are similar to those elsewhere. Again, the directive does not require any particular form of implementation, and we have had to make judgments as to what is most appropriate in Britain. In many cases, the rights that are referred to elsewhere in the EU again relate to rights for traditional broadcasting matters, not some of the newer ways in which we are likely to be engaged. There could be a collective negotiation of reciprocal arrangements, with performers collecting remuneration in other EU countries. The UK Government are prepared to take up any problems in obtaining remuneration with other EU Governments, as we have done when necessary.
There was a question about the exception to public performance rights in relation to sound recordings in section 72 of the 1988 Act and why that measure was not repealed, as some believe the directive seems to require. The directive does not expressly require us to repeal it. We consider it undesirable in any event to remove such a specific exception, approved by Parliament during the passage of the 1988 Act, without an equally express exclusion provision under the directive or other measure.
Our legal advice is that the exception in section 72, which is in respect of sound recordings contained in broadcasts seen or heard by non-paying audiences, is within the limitation to record producers' and performers' rights permitted by the directive. I am aware that record producers are concerned about the impact of section 72 on their economic interests, now that broadcasts are replacing the direct playing of sound recordings in certain retail outlets, but we do not consider that repeal of section 72 is an appropriate way in which to deal with any difficulties, particularly as it would also impact on other very different situations. In any event, the Copyright Tribunal is likely to deal with what is the appropriate royalty level for use of sound recordings in broadcast services specifically tailored to retail outlets.

Mr. Hoon: The Minister has mentioned the interests of record producers, but are not performers, record producers

and, most significantly, record companies all united in asking the Government to reconsider section 72 because of those groups' clear concern about the impact on their income?

Mr. Taylor: There was pressure on us, but pressures would arise in following other courses. The retail trade, for example, is developing various ways of using music in their outlets. Repeal would be an extremely restrictive practice and, in the long term, it would not necessarily be in the interests of any of the parties concerned, which is why we have continued the exception in section 72, which was debated in the Standing Committee on the Copyright, Design and Patents Bill.

Mr. Hoon: Surely, if the retail trade or other organisation—restaurants, cafes, public houses, and so on—chooses to use music, particularly broadcast music, it should pay an appropriate fee for the use of that music. It paysa fee if it uses specialised music services. Why is there a distinction between the use of specialised services and the use of broadcast music?

Mr. Taylor: We should bear it in mind that, often, such organisations do pay a fee—to the broadcaster. We are not removing the exception in relation to the further reproduction of that music in any retail outlet. We consider that to be a sensible way forward, and therefore we have not made the changes that the hon. Gentleman has requested. It was a fine balance, but, having heard all the arguments, I decided that that was the right way forward. The Copyright Tribunal is considering the matter.
The hon. Gentleman talked about equitable remuneration for rental and how it is defined. The directive did not define "equitable", as what is fair in one set of circumstances may not be so in another. Nor, therefore, can the regulations set that out, but they do provide that remuneration is not to be considered inequitable simply because it is paid in a single sum or at the time an author or performer transfers his exclusive rental right to a producer—the directive says that the remuneration may be paid in either of those ways. Again, the matter will need to be tested by the Copyright Tribunal, were there to be a dispute.

Mr. Hoon: I accept that the directive does not, in any event, define equitable remuneration, but I made the point to inquire of the Minister whether he thought it appropriate that performers in particular should have the means to ascertain the information that would allow them to find out whether they were receiving equitable remuneration—information about the number of times that the music in question was used, the circumstances of the user, the number of times and the form in which the music was reproduced, and so on. That would allow them to build the sort of picture of remuneration that is obviously available to users.

Mr. Taylor: Obtaining the proper information is a matter for the traditional negotiations with producers. As we move forward, there will be cases in which producers may not have negotiated a particular package based on what they would regard as full remuneration, simply because of the commercial opportunity, but the regulations give performers increased rights to claim an


equitable remuneration from producers. We have taken steps to help the producers, and I have tried to explain that to them. The assumption about the transfer of authors' rental rights in films to producers—a point raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield—received careful consideration.
Throughout, we have tried to err on the side of there being a proper way to get works to market without undue complexity. We certainly do not want to put a burden on any rental outlets, many of which are small businesses. We have had to make a decision about who are authors and about the respective rights of performers. On balance, I think that we have got it right. The statutory instruments were tabled on 11 July, and we have had extensive consultation since then. I am aware of the arguments.
The hon. Member for Ashfield raised a number of minor points on which he wanted guidance. For the sake of brevity, I shall write to him on those. However, he raised a serious point about the position of uplinks within the European Economic Area, from one area to another. It is a complex matter. We have attempted to apply the copyright law from the place from which the signal has been broadcast. Of course, there will be certain safeguards for countries if the uplinkers come from outside the EEA. Again, it is a matter of giving some comfort to the broadcasters about which copyright law applies.
I do not have details to hand about the specific case of how Cable News Network would be affected, but I am concerned about the possible effects on satellite uplinks. That point has been clarified in the regulations by reference to the use of the law of the country from which the signal originates.

Mr. Hoon: It would be helpful if the Minister would say categorically that there will not be any effect on the ownership of copyright. There is ambiguity under the provisions as drafted. I am not questioning the underlying reason behind the drafting; it is simply that, because of the way in which the rather technical provisions operate, there is concern that the statutory instrument could be interpreted as defining British Telecom not only as the maker of a CNN or similar broadcast for infringement purposes—the point just dealt with by the Minister—but as the owner of the copyright in that broadcast. I hope that the Minister will say that that is not the case; that would resolve any ambiguity.

Mr. Taylor: It is not the intention behind the regulations to affect authorship of broadcast or ownership of copyright, and we do not consider that they do so. Regulation 6 states not that the operator of an uplink station is the person making the broadcast, but rather that he is to be treated as such. In addition, we believe that it is clear from the manner in which the regulations are presented that the uplink operator should be treated as the broadcaster only for certain purposes—in relation to clearance of the rights in underlying works in broadcasts identified in regulation 6.
I stress that the regulations must be construed in the light of the directives that they are intended to implement, which similarly have no bearing on authorship or ownership of copyright in broadcast. That is also the approach that will be taken by United Kingdom courts in interpreting the legislation.
The key point is that, in attempting to implement the directives in UK law, we have tried not to disturb traditional relationships. We have tried to make it as

simple as possible for content comfortably to flow into the UK market. In many cases, that means that, although we have strengthened the rights of performers and given them an underlying position in negotiations—the right to equitable remuneration regardless of the economic arrangements entered into by the producers—they should nevertheless negotiate with the producer.
The Copyright, Design and Patents Act was far-reaching in its vision of the future. It covers some of the problems relating to the new age of electronic interactivity—video on demand. We are comfortable that we have anticipated ways in which that may evolve as the information society progresses. An important point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), is that the European Commission has already published a Green Paper on copyright in the information society. Clearly, further directives that may emanate from that in due course will consider the way in which the electronic age will be accommodated. Before I conclude, I intend to deal with the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Miller: I am a little puzzled about the Minister's remarks relating to proposed section 144A(7) and the definition of cable re-transmission. I am not sure that the definition will meet what the Minister says is the intention. For example, in transmitting a compact disc that has been recorded digitally on to a network server, or in receiving a signal, encoding it oneself and putting it out on to a server through BT networks, who would be in breach of copyright? Clearly, the person doing that would be in breach, but there is some doubt whether responsibility would also lie with BT or the cable provider—or, in the case of mixed provision, a network of people. Will the Minister explain how the definition will work?

Mr. Taylor: In some cases, such matters will have to be tested in the courts. We are talking about issues such as common carriers, whether there is a burden of proof that there was a knowing breach of copyright by a carrier, whether it be a telephone company or a broadcaster; whether rights have been properly obtained; and whether they were knowingly obtained. Quite honestly, it is not for me, across the Floor of the House of Commons, to anticipate how the courts will interpret such matters, but they will need to be tested.
As media convergence comes about, many such matters will be affected. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that, increasingly in the digital age, it would be easy to lose intellectual property. There could be instant quality reproduction. That is why I have been in discussions with companies, not least the Thorn EMI laboratory, about electronic digital signatures, or watermarks, embedded into a chip, which can be picked up only by special monitoring equipment. That equipment can sensibly work out whether any broadcaster is using copyright material that has not been paid for, or material that has been paid for in the proper way. Technological solutions will have to reinforce the law as we make progress.

Mr. Tony Banks: I know that it is not the Minister's job to anticipate or interpret that which the courts might decide, but there is something that he can tell us: are performers in this country challenging the fairness of


remuneration treated differently from performers in the other countries within the EEA? Are they or are they not being treated differently from all the other performers in the EEA?

Mr. Taylor: To my knowledge, our performers are not being treated differently from all other performers. There are variations within the EEA, from country to country. Many of the ways in which our performers feel they might be treated differently in fact relate only to traditional broadcast materials. To that extent, we are attempting to provide a flexible way for performers—while still protecting them—to pursue their interests and get equitable remuneration, without specifying that in statute. As we move forward to new distribution mechanisms, we shall quickly find that the 50:50 split is not tenable. It is in the long-term interests of performers for their material to be distributed more widely rather than for it to be carefully restricted and used less. Content will be king in the new age, putting performers in a much better position.
The Government have played a leading role in the development of the wider market. We are active in the preparations for the World Intellectual Property Organisation conference in December. I have had active talks with the various music organisations in this country and in Europe. Rupert Perry of EMI has played a leading role in that. I have recently been to India to talk about copyright issues. One or two European Union countries, such as Italy, do not have a good record on copyright. We are drawing attention to that. We have also had severe problems with China and Bulgaria.
We are well aware of the need for copyright. If intellectual property is not protected, there will not be a content industry capable of dealing with the pressure of public demand. It is also necessary to protect intellectual property by technological means. Electronic signatures, or watermarks, will be essential and there will be a much greater need for monitoring. Intellectual property will be important in the transmission of music, software and programmes. It will be downloadable only in a country in which a performer is confident that his copyright will be protected rather than one without secure copyright protection.
That can be resolved only through the implementation of responsible policies around the world. Sir Leon Brittan will be assisting in the World Trade Organisation talks. Further talks are being held by WIPO. We are putting as steadfast a case as possible, for good commercial reasons. The music industry is one of the few in this country that export twice as much as they import. It is an important player in the national economy and we want to do everything possible to ensure that it and all the other providers of intellectual property gain secure access to world markets.

Mr. Miller: Is the Minister seeking to redefine the traditional meaning of the word "broadcast" in the context of this debate? Will he press for that definition to extend to all forms of digital transmission?

Mr. Taylor: I am cautious about broadening that definition. The hon. Gentleman will well understand that I believe that there will eventually be convergence. Even the BBC has openly announced plans for broadcasting over the Internet. There will be a convergence of all means of transmission—including cable, telephone and satellite. Broadcasters and other content providers, including the music industry, will come together in the new multimedia age.
As I mentioned in the Command Paper issued yesterday in response to the report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on the information society, we envisage looking at the regulatory environment in the context of changing industries. The time is not yet right for that. We have made some pre-emptive moves—for example, through the regulation by the Office of Telecommunications of conditional access as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1996. We are well apprised of the changes and well aware of their significance. It is not sensible to move too far or too fast. We are watching carefully to see where technology leads.
We have to protect copyright and intellectual property. I believe that the measure will do that, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 11 th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Licensing Law (Northern Ireland.)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I beg to move,
That the draft Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.

Mr. Moss: We are considering two orders, which together form a package of reforms. One deals with the licensing of premises such as public houses, hotels and restaurants, the other with the registration of private clubs in Northern Ireland to permit them to supply alcohol to members.
The orders consolidate, with amendments, existing Northern Ireland law in the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. A wide-ranging review of the laws on alcohol began in December 1992 with a review of the laws on registered clubs. A review of the licensing laws was instigated in February 1994, after it became clear that much common ground existed between clubs and licensing laws. The orders are coming before the House only now because there have been extensive consultations since then.
The orders contain many new deregulatory provisions and reflect the changing social attitudes and expectations of modern society. We have sought to strike a balance between the need to control and regulate the sale of alcohol in an effective, enforceable and equitable way and the need to have full regard to the wider public health issues. The main changes represent a balanced relaxation of the law, while preserving the safeguards necessary to promote sensible and socially responsible attitudes to drinking and prevent alcohol abuse.
I shall try to deal quickly with the more significant provisions that amend existing laws or propose new measures. I shall first explain the provisions common to both orders and then explain those unique to each.
Articles 13 and 21 of the licensing order and article 24 of the clubs order provide that liquor licences and club registrations, currently granted or renewed for a maximum of one year, may now be valid for up to five years at the discretion of the courts. That deregulatory measure will be welcomed by licenceholders and registered clubs, and will also free up valuable court time.
Article 42 of the licensing order and article 24 of the clubs order will abolish the compulsory Sunday afternoon break and allow the supply of alcohol between 12.30 pm and 10 pm on that day. That has been a contentious issue in the reforms. However, the proposal brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and 'Wales, recognising widespread demands to be able to enjoy a more leisurely lunch, to have an early high tea or, as is becoming increasingly popular, to watch a satellite football match with friends.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister clarify a point in the registration of clubs order that I cannot work out? Article 24(1)(b) says that the permitted hours are

on Good Friday from 5 in the afternoon to 11 in the evening
Article 24(2)(b) says that the hours shall
provide for a break of at least 2 consecutive hours between 2 in the afternoon and 5 in the afternoon on Good Friday

Mr. Moss: That is reasonably clear. Article 24(1)(b) gives the total period during which a club can be open, provided there is a two-hour break at some stage.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Article 24(1)(b) says:
from 5 in the afternoon to 11 in the evening".
That is six hours. Article 24(2)(b) provides for a break between 2 in the afternoon and 5 in the afternoon when the club should not be open.

Mr. Moss: I shall come back to that point when I wind up.
Now, where was I? High tea, I think. There is no evidence that the change to the law in England and Wales has led to an increase in alcohol consumption.
Article 59 of the licensing order and article 33 of the clubs order bring the law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with England and Wales with the introduction of children's certificates, which will enable young people under 18 to be in licensed premises and registered clubs up to 9 pm, provided that they are accompanied by an adult.
The presence of children in an alcohol environment has been an emotive issue in Northern Ireland, although I would inform hon. Members that children have been allowed into the bars of sporting clubs in the Province for many years. There has been a considerable demand from people in Northern Ireland to be able to enjoy a drink in the company of their family, usually as an accompaniment to a meal, and the Government are satisfied that such a proposal will also enable children to see sensible drinking in a family context. The Government have taken the power to prescribe by regulations the requirements that all licensed premises and registered clubs must meet, should that be necessary.
I come now to proposals unique to the licensing law. Article 5 creates three new categories of premises that may be licensed—guest houses, conference centres and higher education institutions. There has been a considerable demand from the public to have a drink with a meal in guest houses, and the Government, with strong support from the Northern Ireland tourist board, believe that that limited extension will assist Northern Ireland's tourism industry.
In addition, one of the fastest-growing businesses in Northern Ireland is the conference industry, and the Government believe that that industry should be given every opportunity to compete for its share of the United Kingdom market. The Province's universities also host a number of events and conferences, and having their own licences will provide them with a greater degree of flexibility.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In communications with, I suspect, all Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, the Minister has suggested one or two conference centres that are likely to fall within the description, but he has added "and some others", which widened the description to one that we cannot define.


How will the Government define which centres are to be allowed a licence under the heading of "conference centres"?

Mr. Moss: Many of the larger hotels in Northern Ireland now operate as conference centres, but obviously their licences will be taken care of in the usual way. The universities open during their vacations for conferences, and the measure will enable them to run sensible bars during those conferences. The Waterfront hall in Belfast will also run conferences. The definition will be easy to achieve and, in issuing licences, the courts will be quite clear as to what constitutes a conference centre. Such a centre should have facilities available for large groups of people to participate in a proper programme of discussion and debate over one, two or more days.
Article 5 also provides the powers under which regulations may be made specifying the conditions under which shops and/or supermarkets in Northern Ireland may, in future, sell alcohol alongside other goods. The provision that currently prevents mixed trading will be dropped from the legislation, thus bringing the law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government are aware of concerns that placing alcohol on a supermarket shelf could give the wrong message, and could result in impulse buying and in exposing children to alcohol in the course of shopping. For that reason, regulations will be put in place to ensure that, among other things, stores set aside a designated area for the sale of alcohol.
Article 42 changes the permitted hours for free-standing off-licences, which have been at variance with the rest of the United Kingdom since 1987, and those for off-licences in, or attached to, pubs, which have differed since 1989. The Government now propose to bring all off-sales outlets in Northern Ireland broadly into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Article 44 introduces two measures that I would wish to highlight. First, licence holders who apply for additional permitted hours will no longer be required to provide food and entertainment, but instead will be required to provide one or the other or, if they so wish, both. That change is in recognition of the contention that many people may want food or entertainment, but not necessarily both.
The second change will allow licensed premises providing food or entertainment, or both, to apply to the courts for an additional two hours on a Sunday night, taking the permitted hours up to midnight, other than on Christmas day or Easter Sunday. It is becoming increasingly popular in parts of the Province for Sunday nights to become social evenings, and the proposals are a sensible recognition of that.
Article 45 deals with small public houses that cannot supply food or entertainment and, under the present law, cannot have late licences. It is therefore proposed that such pubs be allowed up to 20 late licences a year, and the Government are confident that that small but significant concession will be warmly welcomed.
Article 51 deals with the conditions as to the sale of intoxicating liquor in guest houses and restaurants. I shall target my remarks primarily on restaurants, where I am bringing forward a number of changes that I should like to bring to hon. Members' attention. The sale of alcohol

in restaurants will continue to be ancillary to the purchase of a main table meal, and to assist the policing of that provision, it will be a feature of the new order that payment for food and drinks must be on the same bill. Additionally, to curb the possibility of premises masquerading as restaurants when they are really discos or something similar, I have decided to introduce a provision prohibiting the charging of an entrance fee.
While on the subject of restaurants, I should point out that I have decided to remove the provisions whereby such establishments applying for a licence to sell alcohol are subject to an annual inspection by the Northern Ireland tourist board. That inspection was extremely detailed and did not need to be satisfied by the non-licensed restaurants. I decided that the system was over-prescriptive and have taken the opportunity to deregulate and allow market forces to operate.
Articles 67 and 68 strengthen the law in relation to the presence of alcohol at unlicensed entertainments or unregistered clubs. In relation to the former, the existing law is targeted at entertainments organised for gain and has proved inadequate. The new provisions prohibit alcohol at any entertainment outside of licensed premises or registered clubs unless it is being held for other than private gain, and places the onus on the organiser to prove that it is not being held for private gain. Article 68 prohibits illegal drinking in clubs that are not registered, and is targeted at what are commonly called "shebeens". Rights of entry have also been provided to the police to investigate suspected breaches of the law.
Article 72 introduces a new provision whereby the police may seek the suspension of a licence if any change of circumstances occurring since the grant or renewal of the licence would suggest that the licence holder was no longer a fit person to hold a licence, or the licensed premises were no longer suitable for such a business.
Finally, I shall detail proposals unique to the clubs law. Articles 3 and 15 are related, and I shall deal with them together. Article 3 tightens the existing restrictions on the sale of alcohol in clubs that have ceased to be registered. That provision outlaws the presence of alcohol in such premises and introduces an automatic five-year disqualification for clubs that are convicted of that offence. That tough new measure is in direct response to clubs that have been exploiting weaknesses in the existing law by claiming that alcohol present in the premises is not being supplied by the club.
Article 4 strengthens the existing laws by providing that, during the waiting period before a court hearing of an application for registration, clubs must have in place certain rules designed to demonstrate their ability to operate within the law. That is coupled with a relaxation of the existing laws, whereby the waiting period to be served by clubs before their applications for registration can be dealt with by the courts will be reduced from two years to one. The waiting period enables clubs to demonstrate that they are bona fide and well run, and a one-year probationary period is now regarded as sufficient.
Article 26 contains an amendment that will increase from 20 to 52 in any year, the number of special occasions on which a club may supply alcohol to 1 am. The figure


of 20 was fixed in 1987 and it now seems only reasonable to permit clubs to enjoy an average of one late night each week throughout the year, subject to police approval.

Mr. Roy Beggs: While there is concern that liberalisation of the regulations could lead to increased alcoholism in Northern Ireland, residents living in close proximity to licensed premises and the premises that will have extended, late-night provision for their clientele, are concerned that they will be subjected to unnecessary disturbance arising from the late-night activities. What assurance can those people be given that, if a racket is created week on week, the Royal Ulster Constabulary will take prompt action, and the privilege that we are about to introduce will be removed?

Mr. Moss: The article enables the extension from 20 to 52, but it is an extension of permitted hours. I understand that the club would have to apply for each extension. The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn to my attention the concerns of people in the vicinity. If such an extension caused them concern or disturbance, they would be able to oppose an extension of the permitted hours in court. That is my understanding, and if I have not given the hon. Gentleman the correct answer, I shall clarify it later.
Article 40 contains significant changes to the existing law, enabling the manner in which accounts are to be kept and presented to be prescribed. Among other things, the 1987 order contained provisions to combat racketeering in the affairs of some clubs. The Government believe that it is vital that all registered clubs should manage their financial affairs in a responsible manner, and the police, along with the terrorist finance unit of the Northern Ireland Office, have warned that there is a continued need for vigilance to ensure that clubs comply with the law.
Article 42 will therefore give the RUC wider powers of entry and inspection, so that clubs can be policed more effectively. It will enable the police to enter and inspect premises, particularly those that continue to supply alcohol after losing their registration and clubs that are awaiting registration.
Article 43 will introduce a penalty points provision under which points will be attributed for certain offences relating to the keeping and presenting of accounts. It is aimed at clubs that commit serious or persistent breaches of the law in relation to their accounts. The RUC and the Northern Ireland Office requested, and strongly support, the introduction of that provision, particularly as the courts will no longer be renewing registrations on an annual basis. Bona fide, well-run clubs, which the majority are, have nothing to fear from that proposal.
That concludes my outline of the main provisions of the Orders. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the proposals comprise sensible relaxations in the law as well as maintain essential safeguards. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Eric Illsley: As the Minister said, the two measures are to some extent deregulatory, although the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 contains a restatement of existing law, which is different from the comparable legislation for the rest of Great Britain. The order is much less deregulatory than

the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which brings the law into line with that for the rest of Great Britain.
When similar licensing legislation was introduced in the House for the rest of the United Kingdom, the Labour party did not oppose it and we shall not oppose the orders this evening, although I understand and am well aware of the objections—the Minister circulated them to hon. Members—to the increased availability of alcohol, particularly on Sundays.
I wholeheartedly endorse the Minister's comments on sensible drinking and striking a balance between giving people the freedom to enjoy the increased availability of alcohol, especially on Sundays, at meal times and with their families, and increasing alcohol consumption and abuse.
I agree with the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs that the original order increased the regulations applicable to clubs in certain areas and did not deal with some of the issues that the wider club movement, both here and in Northern Ireland, wanted to raise. The Minister was good enough to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs, hon. Members and myself, and the draft order was amended to take account of some of the points made. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that he took to meet us and discuss the issues at length, and for rethinking the order in relation to article 43 and penalty points. As a consequence, we shall not oppose the order.
I am conscious of the Government's fears about clubs in Northern Ireland; the Minister mentioned the enforcement details. Clubs in Northern Ireland are different from those in Great Britain. The latter are usually non-profit-making or working men's clubs. In Northern Ireland, clubs are usually of a sporting nature or have some other social function. The Government have argued that some have been vehicles for paramilitary funding and, although there is no proof, that fear remains and the Government are conscious of it, as are the Opposition.
That possibility has to be borne in mind when we discuss these proposals, particularly the requirements for improved accountancy for clubs in Northern Ireland, which we welcome. When we debate such orders in future, I hope that the accountancy systems in place and the details contained in the present orders are such that we might be able to deregulate some of the prescription surrounding bookkeeping for Northern Ireland clubs, bringing them more into line with the systems that operate throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government are still overly prescriptive in a few areas, and further deregulation measures could have been implemented.
While we welcome the reduction in the waiting period for registration from two years to one, the licensing order provides for a provisional licence. We appreciate that there is a need to be able to establish that a club and its activities are bona fide and that it is seeking to obtain a licence in the proper manner. I suggest to the Minister, however, that the Northern Ireland Office could have considered a probationary licence, rather than the probationary one-year waiting period.
We also welcome the increased duration of a certificate from one to five years, which will enable clubs to enjoy a period of stability and reduce the bureaucracy surrounding annual registration—the annual visits to the magistrates


and the licensing bench and all that goes with that. We are aware that the Government felt that the extension merited the penalty points system. The Minister pointed out that the deregulatory aspect of the increased duration of the certificate meant that such a system should be put in place to enable the police to monitor clubs throughout the five-year period.
An application concerning a club can still be made to the courts at any time under article 13. So an application for the cancellation of registration can be made at any time, regardless of the five-year period. Under article 8, the period for consideration of the conduct of a club in relation to the renewal of a certificate has been extended to six years. The five-year registration period is also at the discretion of the courts. I hope that the magistrates courts in Northern Ireland will honour the intention of the order that the registration period should be five years, and that registrations are not granted for one or two years.
We welcome the changes that will allow clubs to apply for registration out of time and temporary premises to be certificated. We give a cautious welcome to the extension of Sunday hours. I endorse the Minister's comments about eating times on Sunday and about sporting activities on satellite television. It is now more than a year since similar legislation was introduced in Great Britain, and there have been no particular problems with it.
We welcome the special occasion authorisations, although I am conscious of the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), that residents living near clubs or pubs that will have a licence to operate until I am should be given due consideration; we must be aware that some complaints may arise.
I hope that the courts will make a reasonable interpretation of what is a special occasion. When the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill was debated in February 1995, reference was made to the inconsistencies between magistrates in various parts of the country; what some regarded as a special occasion others regarded as not warranting an extension.
The order allows for children accompanied by an adult to be in a club until a 9 pm threshold, provided that the club has applied for a children's certificate. The licensing order contains a similar provision, and my comments apply to both orders, which stipulate that for a children's certificate to be granted, there must be a suitable environment for children. That means that there should be facilities for family meals, especially on Sundays. I welcome that, as it would allow families to enjoy meals together on Sundays—something of which most hon. Members will be conscious.
I am not sure how many clubs in Northern Ireland would be deemed to have a suitable environment or how many would even want to admit children. My club allows children to remain until 9.30 pm, and that curfew is well policed by members, who genuinely do not want to drink in an area with children.
Magistrates should consider no-smoking areas when children's certificates are applied for. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) raised that point during the debate on the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill in 1995; he objected to magistrates imposing a requirement that a club should have a no-smoking area to gain a children's certificate and maintained that they

did not have that discretion. I take issue with that, and I hope that the Government, who are responsible for targets for reducing children's smoking under "The Health of the Nation", will share my view that no-smoking areas should be taken into account. For children, a suitable environment should surely be a non-smoking environment.
I fully support the idea of children being able to accompany their parents in clubs and pubs with eating facilities and a pleasant atmosphere, but I would not like children to be taken to smoky bars or taprooms with a less pleasant atmosphere. It behoves us to ensure that the environment is indeed suitable.
Some parts of the order are unnecessarily prescriptive. On article 38. can the Minister tell me why it should be illegal for clubs in Northern Ireland to advertise, when clubs in Great Britain can advertise social events and entertainment? Unfortunately, clubs in Northern Ireland do not have the system of associate membership and are restricted to the members themselves, but there is no reason why they should not be allowed to advertise events in the club to try to increase their membership or attendance.
I have already referred to the penalty points system and to the fact that the Government compromised on the issue and accepted some of what was said by the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs and by hon. Members. I hope that improved accountancy systems will enable us eventually to get rid of the points system altogether. The system is now to apply only to accountancy and bookkeeping matters, as it was felt that that was appropriate to the Government's fears about clubs and fund raising. However, the three-year period for expunging those penalty points is still too long.
Article 47 relates to the presumptions applicable in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is surprising that
Evidence that any person obtained, consumed or intended to consume intoxicating liquor in the premises of a registered club
is considered to be evidence that the liquor was supplied by that club and that the person consumed that liquor.
The article also states:
Where intoxicating liquor in open vessels is found in the premises of a registered club during any period when the consumption of intoxicating liquor in those premises is prohibited…consumption…shall…be deemed to have taken place during that period".
That means that a police officer who walks into a club and sees an empty glass that may have contained alcoholic liquor can assume that liquor was consumed outside the permitted hours, which seems a bizarre interpretation of the law. There were complaints about the penalty points system. because it was felt that the presumptions could be abused if the police or the authorities wanted to close down a club quickly. I find the proof elements of article 47 surprising.
I want to deal with some issues that are not included in the order, but on which we pressed the Minister earlier in the year. One issue that is always raised in relation to clubs is associated membership. That system has been in use in the rest of Great Britain since 1875. It was supported in a letter from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, to the licensing bench. He said:


There seems no reason for refusing the exemption to a club because it admits to honorary membership subscribing members of other clubs affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union and supplies them with liquors on the same terms as its own subscribing members
The associate membership system has been in place for more than 100 years. The Working Men's Club and Institute Union, the CIU, in Great Britain had been hoping to extend those provisions to Northern Ireland. The CIU has printed a set of model rules, which it hoped would be adopted by clubs in Northern Ireland, that would allow for associate membership but strengthen the rules for clubs there and address many of the fears that the Government have raised about improved accountancy and bookkeeping.
It appears that the model rules will not now be applied, because of the restrictions in the order. In schedule 1, paragraph 8 does not replicate the reference to temporary members in the 1987 order. There is no reference to that in the explanatory document. Temporary membership would have afforded something similar to associate membership, but it has been removed without explanation. It seems that the Northern Ireland Office is dead set against associate membership in Northern Ireland's clubs, despite its long history in this country and the fact that it has not caused problems. The associate membership system means that people attending clubs other than their own must have their membership and other details checked before they can gain entry. It is well policed and controlled by the CIU.
We will not oppose the licensing order. The provisions for the rest of the United Kingdom were debated in February 1995. There have been no significant problems with them since then. I expect that the House will soon debate further licensing deregulation, which perhaps should have been in place last year but which was rejected by the deregulation Committee in another place. There are legitimate concerns, such as the extension of Sunday drinking and the increased availability of alcohol in supermarkets and shops, and I am sure that Northern Ireland Members will list them. I endorse again the Minister's view that we have to strike the right balance between the public's freedom to drink on Sundays and the encouragement of increased alcohol consumption. Proper safeguards are essential.
We welcome the extension of licensing to guest houses, conference centres and higher education establishments. Tourism is a major industry in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. There should be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom. The measure will help the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. There are initiatives between the tourist boards of Ireland and Northern Ireland to increase tourism in Northern Ireland, and regulating the licensing system in this way will help.
On the mixed trading provisions, I hope that there will be adequate safeguards on sales from supermarkets and off-licences. It is all too easy for under-age drinkers to obtain access to alcohol from them. We are talking about kids obtaining access not to beer or lager, but to alcoholic water, alcopops, hooch and ciders of about 9 per cent. alcohol by volume, such as Blastaways, Castaways and all the rest. They are attractive to children and easy to drink. They are a problem, and I hope that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent under-age drinking of such alcohol.
We welcome the decrease in bureaucracy that results from longer licences and the idea of occasional licences, especially where the extended hours do not cause problems in residential areas. My earlier comments on magistrates' discretion apply to that.
I have touched on Sunday hours and I give that provision a cautious welcome. It is appropriate to extend Sunday hours and take away the break, but I hope that it is regarded sensibly and that the law will be used as intended to allow families to eat and drink together on Sunday afternoons or take advantage of Sunday televised sport. People have more leisure and they want the freedom to enjoy it in pubs and clubs.
We hope that the additional hours in the order are used sensibly by the licensed trade. There is always a demand for later drinking, but that must be balanced against the public's freedom to avoid rowdiness in the early hours of morning. My experience is that later closing times help to avoid pubs emptying at one time, which can lead to disorder and rowdiness. Lengthened drinking time will allow people to leave in a staggered process. [Laughter.]I mean staggered in time, not physical staggering.
I mentioned children's certificates in relation to clubs, and I would reiterate my comments on what constitutes a suitable environment. We welcome the orders and hope that they are implemented sensibly. We do not want to condone increased alcohol consumption or the increased availability of alcohol to minors, but we want the public to be able to take advantage of deregulation and have the extra freedom to drink with their children on Sunday afternoons. We shall not oppose the orders.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I have two introductory comments. The Minister will by now have realised that, when he undertook to review licensing legislation, he took on a greater problem than he had envisaged. I am sure that he has not thanked the people in his Department and the outside interests who pushed him down that road.
Secondly, it is right that at the outset I should register a protest about the way that the legislation is being handled. We have two orders substantial in both content and size. One has nine schedules and 57 pages, the other has 113 pages and 13 schedules. They contain matters of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. The concern of people in Northern Ireland is shown by the 700 responses that the Minister received.
However, we have only one and a half hours, and the two Front-Bench spokesmen have taken half that time. That is not adequate and should be deprecated by hon. Members who believe that there should be greater opportunity to speak on such matters, especially given the backcloth that we cannot table amendments to Northern Ireland legislation. It is put through by Order in Council on a take it or leave it basis, which is most unsatisfactory in all circumstances.
I note the cost of the orders. The Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order is priced at £11 and the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order at £7.10. Looking at the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, with the purchase price of the two orders, we could probably have bought several rounds of drink and had change left over. The high price reflects the volume of the orders.
I shall take the two orders separately at first. I can accept where the Minister is coming from in respect of the clubs order. Everybody recognises that there are unscrupulous organisations and individuals in Northern Ireland who will try to use every opportunity—whether in the drink trade or anywhere else—to gain funds for themselves or their organisations and the uses to which they might put the money would certainly be condemned by the House. I therefore entirely support the Minister's aim of ensuring that clubs are regulated in such a way as to ensure that no organisation with links to paramilitary or other such groups can benefit from the sale of intoxicating liquor and aid those groups as a consequence.
However, there has been a massive change in the club trade in the past few years. I am sure that the Minister recognises that the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs has played a significant role in regularising the clubs business in Northern Ireland. There has been a massive shift away from the shebeens that were on almost every street corner in some parts of central Belfast. There are now few clubs of questionable legality operating, and all the clubs registered with the Federation of Clubs are recognised as bona fide. The federation has played a major role in urging the Minister to ensure that the licensing laws are such that they remove from the club trade those who would not be proper recipients of a licence.
The main requirement is the one that the Minister sought to deal with under article 43—to ensure that money is not siphoned off for illegal and other purposes. In his enthusiasm, the Minister might have gone beyond what is sensible in that respect. He will want to ensure that there is appropriate legislation to give the Royal Ulster Constabulary whatever support it requires in taking action against those involved in paramilitary attempts to siphon off money from clubs. However, in the original proposal for article 43, the Minister brought in a penalty point system that removed magistrates' discretion to such an extent that we would have had mandatory sentences for technical offences.
One solicitor described such a technical offence in terms of a minor infringement, such as an individual staying a minute after he or she was due to be out of a club. Technically, that individual would be guilty of having broken the law, and the magistrate would have had a duty to require that points be set against the club's licence. It would have been ludicrous for a club to lose its licence as a result of such a technical offence because the magistrates' discretion had been removed.
I am therefore glad to see that the Minister's confidence in magistrates has increased during the draft stage of the order, and that he has removed from schedule 6 several of the non-financial elements where the magistrate would have been required to impose mandatory penalty points. I welcome that change, and the Minister can expect the support of me and my colleagues on that order.
The Minister might find less welcome my comments on the licensing order. I have several concerns about that order, the first of which relates to its very nature. It is enabling legislation, and because so much depends on the regulations and conditions that will apply to the various articles, it is difficult for hon. Members debating the merits of the order to know what the final outcome will be.
The Minister's original intention expressed in a statement in January 1995 made me examine three specific areas. One of those has subsequently and, in my view, rightly been dropped from the order—the surrender requirement for licences. The House should thank the Minister for recognising that that would not have been helpful.
The general commercial value of a licence is such that many of those involved in the licensed trade use their ownership of a licence as security with their banks. Since about 1902, anyone who wants to open licensed premises in Northern Ireland has had to secure a licence from an existing licenceholder. That requirement was of benefit in preventing the proliferation of pubs and off-licences throughout Northern Ireland. In addition, licenceholders had an asset of value. I understand that about £100 million was invested in licences and that banks were greatly concerned at the prospect of so much being wiped off the balance sheets of publicans and off-licence owners, to devastating commercial effect.
The Minister has done the right thing in changing his mind. I raise this matter not only to thank the Minister, but to set down a marker, lest any successor to the Minister might be persuaded by the civil servants who originally proposed that we should go down that road. It would not help the licensed trade, nor would it help those who are against drink because it would lead to a greater number of licenceholders in Northern Ireland. The Minister has nevertheless made a brave fist of considerably extending the licensed trade in Northern Ireland through other measures in the order.
I turn now to the element dealing with mixed trading. Under the order, the Minister seems to he dragging us back to the days of what used to be called—long before the time of any hon. Member here—the old spirit grocers. Effectively, unless the accompanying regulations state otherwise, the order could result in alcohol being sold on every street corner. There will be nothing to prevent any shop from setting aside a section of floor space and employing someone over 18 for the purpose of selling liquor. The order makes it possible for alcohol to be available on almost every street in Northern Ireland. I am keen to hear what conditions the Minister will impose to ensure that we do not have, dotted across the countryside, people who will be able to run what is effectively an off-licence in every street in Northern Ireland.
The legislation is such that I suspect that it has been introduced primarily as a result of pressure by the supermarket trade—not only supermarket traders in Northern Ireland, but those with whom the Minister and the Conservative Government will be more closely associated, who are coming to Northern Ireland. I notice that J. Sainsbury plc says that it will apply for a licence for every set of premises that it opens in Northern Ireland. If it does so, it will significantly affect jobs in Northern Ireland as well as the availability of alcohol.
Supermarkets such as Sainsbury and Tesco are moving into Northern Ireland. They, and those who are already there—Stewart's, Wellworth's and so on—will undoubtedly out-price the local off-licences, where jobs will be lost.
The legislation introduces to young people the idea that drink is a normal factor in their lives. I suspect that no regulation that the Minister could frame would ensure that young people did not pass through areas where drink was


available, either in shops or supermarkets. Day by day, they will have greater contact with drink, and it will be much more obvious to them that drink is available.
I note that the BBC's "Food and Drink" programme sent several under-age individuals to various supermarkets in Great Britain to test legislation currently in force which is similar to that which the Minister proposes to introduce in Northern Ireland. On every occasion, those young people were able to buy drink, whether it was from Sainsbury, Tesco, Asda or other major supermarkets. All were able to purchase drink although they were minors.
There is a much lower standard—and, I suspect, a lower level of awareness—among people who work on the tills of supermarkets than there would be in off-licences. The Minister must at least acknowledge that he will have to take steps to give him other means of dealing with under-age people who will be able to obtain drink as a result of the legislation that he is encouraging the House to support tonight.
I notice from a recent report that J. Sainsbury at York lost its drink licence because it had been caught selling alcohol to under-18s, and children of 14 and 15 were able to buy drinks on three separate occasions when they had been sent into the supermarket by the police. Interestingly, on one occasion when they did so, the person who sold them the drink said, "Put it in a carrier bag or I will lose my job." Obviously, that individual was prepared to sell drink to someone aged 14 or 15, with the knowledge that she was selling it to a minor.
The Minister increases the opportunities for under-age drinking—a problem that already causes great concern in Northern Ireland. I suspect that, almost weekly, people will visit my surgery and those of many hon. Members from Northern Ireland, especially the Belfast area, to complain about under-age youths causing problems in their area because they have access to drink. I also suspect that those people will be able to tell us where those youths are purchasing the drink. The Minister aggravates the social problems in Northern Ireland by this legislation.
I ask the Minister, why has it not been possible, at the time that we are discussing this legislation, for us to have sight of the regulations that will control what goes on in shops and supermarkets? The legislation has not come out of the blue to the Minister; he has been talking about it since the start of 1995. The Northern Ireland Office must have an idea of what the regulations are.
Some of us suspect that the Minister seeks, by the methods that I have outlined, to push the enabling legislation through the House tonight and then introduce regulations that might make the regime very liberal. They might allow supermarkets and shops to sell alcohol to the public without much restriction.
Part of the legislation deals with restaurants, guest houses and so on. The Minister again heaps up problems for the future with that provision. Once again he has an advantage over every other hon. Member, because, although we are aware of what would happen as a result of his legislation, he does not invite us to read the regulations and conditions that would apply, under the legislation, to restaurants.
It is possible that, under the legislation, not only will alcohol be able to be sold as an accompaniment to meals by bona tide restaurants whose main business is selling food, but it could be the major source of income for many of those people whose contact with food will be only a

matter of convenience for their profits, who will almost run a bar. By introducing drinking into every restaurant, which would undoubtedly be the result, such regulations would destroy the family atmosphere that exists in so many restaurants in Northern Ireland. They would increase the temptation for people to remain after their meal to continue drinking, with a consequent effect not only on social problems related to drink but on drinking and driving and so on.
The Minister has built up many problems for the future in Northern Ireland as a result of those elements of the licensing order that he brings before us tonight. I shall briefly comment on how he could overcome those problems in the regulations relating to restaurants, shops and supermarkets.
I have approached the Minister several times regarding shops and supermarkets, suggesting that they should have a separate till that deals only with products from the licensed area, and that there should be a separate door to distinguish that area from the rest of the supermarket. The Minister wants to leave things as vague as possible. That is a mistake; we, if not the Minister, will live to regret that.
The Minister should consider granting restaurants a wine licence instead of a full licence. That would restrict drinking to some extent. It would also take drink away from public view. A bar is unnecessary if there is only a wine licence. If the Minister does not follow that road, he should consider restricting the floor area of the alcohol sales element of the restaurant in accordance with the size of the restaurant.
What is the Minister's definition of a guest house? Will having an upstairs room available for a lodger allow a person to hold a licence on the strength of running a guest house? Perhaps the Minister will tell us in detail how flexible he will be about that.
On the Sunday issue, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). I do not believe that there is any demand for an extension of drinking time on Sunday. I do not believe that the Minister has been pressed by the people of Northern Ireland to extend the Sunday provisions. The whole tenor of his legislation is to extend drinking time, to increase the number of outlets from which people can secure alcoholic beverages, to increase young people's exposure to alcohol, to impose on people in Northern Ireland the view that alcohol is a normal part of everyday life, and to increase the pressure to introduce them to drink.
The Minister should consult his colleagues in other Departments to learn the cost of the abuse of alcohol to many Government Departments in Northern Ireland and to local government there. If he were as aware of that as are many of us who live in Northern Ireland, I doubt whether he would try to extend the availability of alcohol to the extent that the legislation does.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall not cover the ground that was covered by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), except to underline the concern that he expressed. There seemed to be some naivety among Members on both Front Benches when they spoke about extending the licence to stores.
I query the concern that the police might be too quick to prosecute. The evidence over the years is that they have been slow to do so. Many years ago, complaints were


made to a police officer that a publican was selling alcohol to minors. The police officer claimed that there was no evidence of that, but the late Rev. Sammy Simms of the Bethany congregation gave a youngster money to go into the public house and buy alcohol, and frog-marched the constable in behind him. Although we hear it said that the law is too restrictive, it may not be restrictive enough to prevent the exploitation of men and women, boys and girls.
On a recent visit to California, I was struck by the fact that, in virtually every restaurant, and in other places, there was a sign warning of the health hazards not only of smoking, but of alcohol in certain conditions. It is important to recognise that in this debate we are dealing with one of the most serious problems of the human race, especially in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps it is because I pride myself on being an Ulster Scot that I have some sympathy with the calumny of Scotland and Glasgow in the words of the song: "There's something the matter with Glasgow, boy—she's going round and round." There is nothing wrong with the one who had imbibed, but the rest of the world is in trouble.
I shall press the Minister on the issue of designated areas and ask him to underline the fact that not only the sale but the supply of alcohol to minors is against the law. That is sometimes misunderstood. People say, "But we didn't sell it to them." However, the person who sells or gives alcohol to minors is guilty of a breach of the regulations.
In the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, article 3(2) states:
every person who supplies, obtains, consumes, keeps for supply
alcohol without a licence
shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
It is an open breach of regulations to supply or sell without a proper licence, but that carries the same penalty as supplying alcohol to a young person, which is covered by article 34. The first offence seems more serious than the second.
I make a plea to the Minister. If the House is not prepared to do so for the nation as a whole, can we not move speedily towards the introduction of a common form of ID in Northern Ireland? A shop or club selling alcohol would no longer be able to hide behind the excuse that young people look older than they are. It is common practice in the United States for the provider to ask for an ID. If that were introduced in Northern Ireland, it would clearly identify the person and make it plain whether he or she was over 18. It would also be helpful for election purposes.
I await the Minister's response to my earlier question. We have expressed our concerns for years, but the Government keep telling us to wait until there is an Assembly. I have long contended that, until there is an Assembly, the House should legislate for Northern Ireland by Bill rather than by Order in Council, so that we can examine the legislation line by line and amend it. Drafting errors have occurred. I suspect that there is one in article 24 of the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order.
The Minister will be aware that many in my constituency have been concerned about the prospect of a floating restaurant or a floating pub on the Lagan. I have

no objection in principle to it being on the Lagan, but I am not so sure that I agree with the ambiguous position of the Laganside development body, which stated earlier that it had no opinion on the matter but now clearly wants the development on the Lagan—not towards the mouth of the Lagan, but adjacent to the Queen's recreation and physical education building.
The legislation in that connection is too lax, because it does not take proper account of the objections of residents. Although no firm decision has been taken, it is strange that after a public inquiry turned down the application, there are those who are still pressing for the development against the wishes of the river users of the Lagan, the residents of the surrounding area and others.
If the Government want to discourage people from drinking and driving, it is difficult for them to require licensed premises to provide car parking spaces. Churches and other establishments in new buildings can be compelled to provide parking, but apparently no such requirement applies to restaurants or Canary wharf—on the Lagan, not in London. The calm of the area has been shattered by the provision of parking facilities. It is fascinating to note that, when the floating restaurant was originally proposed, there was a yellow line along Stanmillis embankment that would have prevented people from parking, but when the developers decided that they want the restaurant, the line was removed.
If proper regulations are not drawn up, there will be further infringements of people's liberties and rights. I sympathise with the Minister and accept the necessity for the registration of clubs. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East when he said that his party would support the Minister in that respect. I query the interpretation of some of the regulations. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, the clubs in Northern Ireland are different from those in this country. It is not true that there are no working men's clubs in Northern Ireland—there are—but sporting clubs are now more prevalent, and shebeens have also become popular.
I ask the Minister about the success in policing those clubs that are closely involved with paramilitary activities. How many of such clubs have had funds sequestered and how many have been put out of business? That should be a touchstone for how we shall police these laws in the future. If we cannot implement the existing regulations, how will the new regulations be an improvement?
I query the views expressed by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central regarding simplified accountancy. During my lifetime, I have discovered that there are many creative accountants. It is fascinating to learn that restaurateurs can cook and that accountants can cook the books. I would like to see regulations set down that make it difficult for people to mix the books as easily as the drinks—to use a mixed metaphor.
Finally, I understand the concept of the family. I return to my comments in an earlier debate about activities on a Sunday—I prefer to call it the Lord's day. I believe that Sundays were given to us to use for the common good. Many years ago it was argued speciously that football should be played on Sunday because people went shopping on Saturday. Then there was a craze for Sunday shopping, and some football returned to Saturday as the primary league was televised on Sunday.
I return to the question of policing. How do we introduce the English social environment, with the old village pub, to an entirely different cultural situation in Northern Ireland? We will destroy the family if we bring children to such places. If we are introducing laws to allow clubs to open on a Sunday afternoon so that people may watch big sporting matches, how do we explain the fact that people in Belfast have been doing that for years?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): draw the House's attention to the fact that the debate will conclude at 6.33 pm. I am sure that hon. Members want to hear the Minister answer their queries, so I ask the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to bear that in mind.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand the difficulty that the Minister faces, but our difficulties are greater. I raised the matter of time with the Minister during my last deputation to him, but he did not tell us that he intended to combine the two orders. We could have debated each order for an hour and a half. It is absolutely scandalous to conduct the debate in this manner, and the Whips Office did not inform us of the Government's intention to move the motion to facilitate that process.
It is unbecoming of the two Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Insley) and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), that tonight they spoke for half of the allotted time and left Back Benchers little debating time. It is a very serious matter. There are 172 pages of legislation and 22 schedules upon which we are asked to comment in a couple of minutes.
I shall riot go over the ground that has been covered so ably by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I agree with the general tone of their speeches. I ask the Minister one question: how will he deal with the planning for those premises that will be able to sell liquor? We know the difficulties faced by a public house in obtaining a licence. How will the Minister deal with the widespread clamour for liquor licences? Will there be any restrictions? What does the Minister plan to do?
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East was absolutely right when he said that we should debate the regulations tonight. We are completely in the dark in that regard. I was amazed by the Minister's explanation when he said that he would minimise the dangers: he should try to eradicate the dangers that arise from young people buying alcohol on impulse. The Minister has not been fair to the representatives of Northern Ireland in his presentation of the legislation tonight. He spent a long time consulting about the legislation, and he should have given the people of Northern Ireland and Their representatives an opportunity to debate it.
The Minister is anxious to make some sort of reply to the debate, and if I were a bad boy I would stay on my feet and talk it out. However, I shall not do that. Tonight the Minister has done the people of Northern Ireland no favours—especially in his handling of the Sabbath day issue. That has serious implications. People have differing

views on the matter, but those who have spoken to me say that we need not more alcohol outlets but fewer. That should be the Minister's governing principle. There are far too many alcohol outlets and we must restrict, rather than increase, their number. By contrast, we now have an open-door approach.
I conclude by referring to the sale of alcohol in spirit grocers, which ensnared young people—particularly the working-class families of Belfast—in the chain of alcoholism. One of the first acts of the old Stormont Government was to abolish them. There was a social clean-up, and young people were freed from that awful chain. As I have told the Minister, we are returning to that situation in this legislation.

Mr. Moss: I shall obviously not have sufficient time in which to make even a small inroad into the queries that have been raised tonight. I promise to write to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate to answer their questions.
In reply to a number of general points raised during the debate—particularly by Conservative Members—I am conscious of the contentious ingredients in the legislation, particularly regarding licensing. That is why it has taken three years to bring the legislation to the House. I welcome the general support for the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order and I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), the Opposition spokesman, for his helpful involvement in the consultation process. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) brought people to see me to discuss the clubs order and, as a result of those representations, significant changes were made to the face of the order.
I emphasise the fact that consultation took place over a lengthy period. Although criticism has been levelled this evening at the lack of detail regarding the regulations, particularly those applying to mixed trading, I assure the House that when they are published—they are currently with our legal people—I shall send them not only to Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland but to all interested parties for comment before I commit them to the legal system. I give that promise.
We took the view that certain matters should be dealt with in the form of regulations so that we would be able to make changes at short notice if we saw that such provisions were not working in the way that we wanted.
I think that all those who have contributed to the debate have talked about mixed trading. We have made it clear that we want to achieve several objectives. We want to ensure that alcohol on sale will be kept and served within a clearly segregated area. We would, within the floor space of the supermarket, ensure that such an area was clearly defined. The area will be separated from the remainder of the shop, and access to it can he gained only by passing through some form of barrier.
Any non-alcoholic goods kept within the area must also be available elsewhere in the shop to ensure that customers do not have to go into the segregated area for non-alcoholic goods. The area will be under adult supervision at all times. It will be off limits to all persons under 18 years of age unless accompanied by an adult. The prescribed area will be situated in such a way that persons entering and leaving the shop will not have to


pass through it. We shall be giving close attention to the provision of designated tills to ensure adherence to the tight regulations that we propose.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), spoke of spirit grocers. The accusation has been made that the liberalisation of the law in the licensing order will lead to a proliferation of outlets selling alcohol. It has been suggested that there will be a shop on every corner selling alcohol. I wish to make it clear that that cannot happen, for two reasons.
First, if a licence were to be obtained from the court, need must be justified. In other words, there should be inadequate provision in a locality before a licence is granted. Secondly, and most important—I am grateful for the support given by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—we have not removed the requirement of surrender. Accordingly, there is a finite number of licences to allow alcohol to be sold in Northern Ireland. That number cannot increase. Corner shops will be able to obtain licences to sell alcohol only if other licences elsewhere are surrendered. A licence is trading at about £40,000, and is used by many off-licences as security at the bank for loans. That being so, I do not believe that what we propose will lead to many shops taking up licences to sell alcohol.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [1 November].

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Rev. Ian Paisley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to vote separately on the orders, which were put together? Are they to be voted on separately in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question is whether we are to vote separately on each of the orders. Is that right?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. The first order deals with the registration of clubs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We shall be dividing the House on the second order. Given the way that the orders were called, we can do nothing else.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, motion No. 2. I think the Ayes have it.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the other Question required to be put at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 3.

Division No. 9]
[6.36 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hawkins, Nick


Alexander, Richard
Heald, Oliver


Amess, David
Hinchliffe, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Horam, John


Barnes, Harry
Hunter, Andrew


Bates, Michael
King, Tom


Body, Sir Richard
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bowis, John
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Brandreth, Gyles
Legg, Barry


Bright, Sir Graham
Lidington, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lilley, Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McAvoy, Thomas


Burt, Alistair
MacKay, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D N
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Malone, Gerald


Coe, Sebastian
Moss, Malcolm


Conway, Derek
Newton, Tony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Ottaway, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Pike, Peter L



Richards, Rod


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Riddick, Graham


Dover, Den
Shaw, David (Dover)


Duncan, Alan
Sims, Sir Roger


Fabricant, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Spink, Dr Robert


Fowler, Sir Norman
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Trickett, Jon


Gill, Christopher
Waller, Gary


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Wood, Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair



Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mr. Bowen Wells and Mrs. Jacqui Lait.


Hannam, Sir John





NOES


Molyneaux, Sir James
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Ian Paisley and Rev. William McCrea.


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

BROADCASTING

That the draft Channel 4 (Application of Excess Revenues) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

FAMILY LAW

That the draft Child Support Departure Direction and Consequential Amendments Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

Pinderfields and Pontefract NHS Trusts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: May I first of all welcome the fact that you in particular, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair for the Adjournment debate tonight, because, although I appreciate that you will be totally neutral in chairing the debate, I want to express my personal appreciation for the work that you have done as a constituency Member on a number of the issues to which I shall refer tonight. I also express my personal appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), who hopes to catch your eye. I am grateful for his support in staying behind to speak in this important debate.
It is customary at the outset of Adjournment debates to express appreciation for being granted the debate, and although I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject, it is a matter of great concern to me that once again I find it necessary to have to draw the attention of the House to the considerable public disquiet over what is happening in the health service in the Wakefield metropolitan district.
When a similar Adjournment debate took place on 3 April this year, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Minister who is here again tonight, remarked that that was the seventh occasion in five months that I had raised the subject in the Chamber. I take no pleasure whatever in reminding him that this is the sixth separate Adjournment debate that I have had on health issues in Wakefield in my time in the House, and I have, as he knows, been forced to raise my concerns in numerous other debates and at Question Time, including Tuesday of this week.
I have found it necessary to speak so often because, throughout my time in the House, the health service in my area has appeared to be stumbling from one crisis to another, without strategy, direction or purpose. I make it clear that I do not blame in any way those dedicated people who are involved in the front-line services in the national health service in Wakefield. We are very fortunate to have in our area some of the best general practitioners, hospital consultants, doctors, nursing and ancillary staff. Most of them believe as strongly as I do in the basic principles of the NHS, but they are deeply demoralised by the consequences of Government health policy in Wakefield and the complete lack of any clear vision for the future.
Those people will have been as angry as I was to hear the Prime Minister say only this week that the service
is now being properly managed".
If the situation were not so serious, they would have laughed at his assertion that, as a result of this "proper management",
money is being allocated to where it should go.
Let met set out the background to the current merger proposals. The Minister knows as well as I do that the local health managers in Wakefield have, for some considerable time, faced an impossible situation in attempting to meet growing demands with resources that

have not only failed to match that growth but been skewed by deliberate Government policy away from the areas of greatest need.
In previous debates, I have drawn attention to the fact that Wakefield health authority is the biggest loser in the whole of the Northern and Yorkshire region of the NHS as a consequence of the changed national funding formula being introduced in the current financial year, under which it is regarded as some £4.5 million overfunded.
According to a letter that I have received this week from the chair of the Wakefield health authority, Mrs. Ann Bolter, the health authority is facing a projected deficit of £2,225,000 based on the estimated expenditure for the year compared with budgets. I am told that the underlying projected deficit for the authority for 1996–97 is £1.7 million and that, in preparing the budget, the health authority agreed to overcommit resources by £3.3 million to cope with increasing demands and pressure from the trusts locally for more resources.
Therefore, there is a total over-commitment of £5 million and Mrs. Bolter states in her letter that the authority will have to look for further funding in 1997–98 in addition to identifying further savings from reduced management costs and the reconfiguration of services. I shall come to what is called the reconfiguration of services, but the Minister should be aware that overall funding is not the only problem.
The Prime Minister's assertion that money
is being allocated to where it should go"—[Official Report, 5 November 1996: Vol. 284, c. 1031.]
is particularly off target in Wakefield. Fundholding has created serious financial problems for the hospitals and a clear two-tier system of local treatment, to which I have referred on several occasions previously. I did a calculation in the last financial year based on the figures of fundholding surpluses supplied to me by the Wakefield health authority, which showed an interesting correlation between those surpluses in general practice and local hospital deficits. Therefore, the Wakefield health authority has an over-commitment of £5 million and the main provider hospital for my constituents and some of those of my hon. Friends who represent other constituencies in the Wakefield metropolitan district, Pinderfields, faced a deficit in the last financial year of £3.16 million.
The Minister has, I know, seen the letter sent to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 16 July by Dr. R. L. Smith, the medical secretary of the Wakefield local medical committee regarding the seriousness of the situation facing Pinderfields hospital in particular. I remind him that the letter stated:
We can no longer deliver a 'safe' service for your constituents with the cake you give to the NHS.
As the chair of the Wakefield health authority has admitted, what is termed a reconfiguration of services is seen as perhaps the only way of substantially addressing those serious problems. My particular concern is that the supposed public consultation process being undertaken on the proposed merger of the two acute trusts in Wakefield metropolitan district is fundamentally dishonest in not explaining to local people the real agenda of service reconfiguration that is being considered at present.
On Tuesday, during Health questions, the Minister referred to the fact that I was personally critical of the original establishment of three separate and competing


third wave trusts within the Wakefield metropolitan district. I made it clear at the time that I believed that a health market would undermine strategic planning in health care and be wasteful of scarce resources. As the consultation document on the proposed merger makes clear, all my fears have, sadly, materialised and, if anything, the situation has become even worse than I originally envisaged.
The dishonesty of the consultation document relates to its avoidance of the key question of what the service reconfiguration will mean to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends representing the users of Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, and Pontefract general infirmary. Page 8 of the consultation document states that the merger proposal and consultation processes
do not relate to any proposal to relocate services across the district.
It goes on to say
such proposals would be the responsibility of Wakefield Health Authority to develop and consult upon.
The Minister is well aware that, several weeks ago, the consultation process being undertaken by the two acute trusts concerned with the merger was stopped and passed to the health authority to continue. No one has offered me a formal explanation for that. The Minister did not answer the point on Tuesday when I questioned him at Question Time, but I expect a full explanation from him tonight.
Regardless of the reasons for that development, as the matter is now formally in the hands of the health authority, in accordance with what is said in the consultation document, my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, now expect to be informed exactly what is proposed in relation to the relocation of services. The original excuse of this being a matter for the health authority will not wash, as the consultation process is now being handled by the health authority itself.
The Minister will recall that, in my contribution during the previous debate on the subject, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth and in meetings and in correspondence that my hon. Friends, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have had with the Secretary of State, we have consistently pressed for a wider review of health care in Wakefield prior to any decision being made on a trust merger.
Our central criticism of the current proposal, apart from the attempt to camouflage a rationalisation agenda, is that it is a piecemeal, panic measure, designed temporarily to stem the tide of huge funding problems, which does not look any further at key questions of direct relevance to Wakefield's problems. It does not touch on the enormous implications of radical changes being introduced in the operation of general practice in our area, which will clearly impact upon acute provision, and it in no way anticipates the likely changes in primary and community care. The four Members of Parliament for the area were astonished to learn from the community trust's chief executive and chair that they had not even been consulted before the formulation of merger proposals by the two acute trusts.
Bearing in mind those points and the fact that the Wakefield health authority is now responsible for the remainder of the merger consultation process, I found it

interesting, to say the least, to learn this week that, in the agenda for its monthly meeting, the Wakefield health authority was considering a paper proposing
an urgent review of acute service provision within the district.
The authority's report says:
This work is likely to take at least six months to complete, and will be a completely separate exercise to the consultation process on Trust mergers… The process will enable a thorough consideration of strategic options for the future provision of acute services and in particular will take account of the drive towards a primary care led NHS.
We are promised yet another so-called public consultation process in the summer of 1997.
The Minister must accept that proceeding with merger proposals prior to such a review of acute services is putting the cart before the horse in a highly irresponsible way. I suspect that key personnel at Wakefield health authority, some of whom I know reasonably well and respect, know that to be the case, but they have been told to get the merger out of the way by the Northern and Yorkshire region. That is not good enough, and the Minister knows it. I want him to give a clear undertaking to block further progress on the merger proposals, and to tie them in with the wider review of acute provision that will be held in the new year.
I also want the Minister to give me a detailed explanation of the reasons for the resignation last week of Mr. Roy Cusworth, the chair of the Pinderfields trust. I wrote to the chair of the Northern and Yorkshire region. Mr. John Greetham, asking for an explanation. His reply of 1 November states:
Roy Cusworth did not offer his resignation but decided for personal and business reasons that he did not wish to offer himself for re-appointment.
I believe that Mr. Cusworth was forced to resign, and we have a right to know why. The Minister must understand that the removal of the chair of the trust in that way has created considerable tensions at Pinderfields hospital. The consultants at that hospital met on Monday night, and have advised me through the chair of the hospital medical committee, Mr. Oliver Fenton, of their serious concern about yet another upheaval at Pinderfields, the purpose of which no one can understand. As the Minister will probably know, representatives of the Pinderfields consultants are to see the chief executive of the Northern and Yorkshire region next week to seek urgent reassurances on the position of Pinderfields, especially in the context of the proposed merger.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have serious anxieties about the future of Pontefract general infirmary if the merger goes through. I share your concerns and determination to defend the interests of the users of that hospital. In the light of recent events, I have fears for the future of Pinderfields.
Following the transfer of regional neurosurgery provision from Pinderfields to Leeds, I strongly fear that it will lose other regional specialisms, such as plastic burns and spinal injuries. It is common knowledge that certain senior consultants at Pinderfields are being head-hunted by the Leeds trusts, and that St. James's, with a deficit of £8 million, and Leeds general infirmary, with a deficit of £7 million, are desperate for the additional revenue that further regional specialisms would attract.
Clearly, the situation in Leeds and the outcome of the recent health review have an important bearing on health provision, especially regional specialisms, in other parts


of west Yorkshire. I fear that, particularly since the demise of the Yorkshire regional health authority, there has been little, if any, attempt to interfere with the operation of naked market forces and the obvious ambitions of the Leeds trusts. I assume that that approach has the Government's blessing, but the logical consequence will be the reduction of Pinderfields hospital and Pontefract general infirmary to the status of cottage hospitals, as all the key specialisms would be concentrated in Leeds.
A merged acute trust in Wakefield may offer a much-needed short-term financial fix, but without the wider strategic review for which my hon. Friends and I have persistently pressed, the future direction of health care in Wakefield metropolitan district will be uncertain, leaving our services wide open to predators. The health authority recognised that fact, and the acute review proposed this week makes obvious sense, but beyond keeping the lid on things until the general election, it makes no sense for regional officials to insist on the separation of this process from the merger debate. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the points that I have made, and that he will respond positively to them.

Mr. Jon Trickett: I wish to associate myself with the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and about the high quality of the staff—clinicians and managers—employed in the health service in the Wakefield area.
Until recently, I was a publicly elected representative in a major city—Leeds. I was closely involved with the Leeds health service for a considerable time. We had two relatively robust general hospitals, albeit within a flawed health care structure. Since being elected to represent Hemsworth, I have been dismayed to discover the fragile state of the health service in our district.
My constituents come within the catchment areas of Pontefract and Pinderfields hospitals. I can therefore express an overall view of the services provided right across the district. The NHS provision in the area suffers from a series of structural problems, which, taken together, produce a service in serious crisis. In no particular order, I shall identify seven structural problems.
First, the continued underfunding of the service in our area has been compounded by the recent changes to the funding formula. That means that our district is to lose several millions of pounds a year, and is certainly the worst loser in the region. Secondly, there is a lack of recognition in the funding formula of the problems that arise from trying to apply a uniform health service across such a heterogeneous set of communities as there is in our district.
The third structural problem is the acute fragmentation—almost a disintegration—of the health institutions in our district. There is clear evidence of a breakdown of confidence between the health providers: the two acute trusts and the community health trust. As Members of Parliament for the district, my hon. Friends and I have been informed of the extraordinary allegations that have been made by people in one or other of those organisations against their colleagues.
Fourthly, that fragmentation has been seriously exacerbated by the effects of the internal market. There is evidence of what can only be regarded as irresponsible

poaching by each of the trusts from the others, and by trusts outside the district. More serious still is the impact of the extension of GP fundholding in the Wakefield district, to a point where every practice is part of the fundholding system, thereby achieving twice the national average level of GP fundholding. The impact of that extension of fundholding is not yet fully understood, but it is already having a serious effect on the acute trusts.
In my constituency, at least two practices have constructed, without proper planning, what can only be described as mini-hospitals, which are taking services away from the existing acute trusts. It is widely believed that services are being purchased by GP fundholders in our district from hospitals as far away as Manchester and Glasgow. I have been informed of patients being sent by taxi to hospitals in Manchester for minor ophthalmic operations. I have been told of one patient who was taken by taxi to Manchester airport and flown to Glasgow for a relatively minor operation that was paid for by a local GP fundholder.
The fifth problem is that the health service in the area suffers to a degree from regional imbalances. The presence of big neighbours, such as Leeds, inevitably causes problems for smaller hospital trusts. The sixth problem is the general morale in the district, which, as in the rest of the country, is now poor. Hospital trusts are suffering from major problems of recruitment and retention of key staff.
The seventh problem is the lack of leadership among those who have been appointed to give directions to the health service in our area. In Pinderfields, both the chief executive and, now, the chair of the trust appear to have been removed without adequate public explanation, arid with no private explanation to any of us who represent the area. I am led to believe by a senior individual in the Pontefract region that the chair of the trust there is likely to be reappointed only for a single year. Can anyone—such as the Minister—explain why such action is being taken? Why was the Pinderfields chair removed recently, and why was the chief executive removed? We have been given no explanations about that, or about why the unusual procedure of establishing a single-year appointment has apparently been adopted.
My exposition of those seven structural problems may not constitute a comprehensive description of all the difficulties facing our area's health service, and not everyone may share my analysis; but it is clear that nearly everyone who is interested in the health service in our area believes that the service faces serious difficulties. Anyone who doubts that should read this week's edition of The Independent on Sunday, which draws attention to the extraordinary fact that a whole ward of nurses has been privatised. It is understood that this is the first time that nursing for a whole ward has been put out to tender. That must be regarded as a step towards privatisation of the health service, either by stealth or, possibly, by incompetence.
The answer from those responsible for the health service in the area has been wholly inadequate. They have been unequal to the task, tackling only one symptom of the problem rather than the multiple causes. To suggest that we can solve all the problems to which I have alluded, and others as well, simply by merging two acute trusts is a grotesquely inadequate response that fails to recognise the scale of the crisis. Indeed, such a response does not address one of the structural problems that I have


described. It disappoints by its lack of ambition; it was also badly bungled, and the manner in which it was executed was arguably illegal, or at least outside the law. If it was not illegal, it was certainly unethical.
How could anyone seriously believe that the public consultation could be conducted properly and transparently by individuals who not only were the authors of the merger proposals but were actively advocating the cause of the merger during that consultation—and, moreover, appeared likely to benefit from the merger? No one could have confidence in a public consultation exercise undertaken in such a way.
Particularly extraordinary is the fact that, when the views of local residents and health care users were supposedly being obtained at public meetings, members of the project team did not merely attend those meetings to provide information but advocated the proposals—and then commented on and participated in a debate that was taking place, supposedly, among health care users. Even more extraordinary, they then proceeded to vote.
At a meeting in Upton, in my constituency, an extraordinary event took place. Every member of the public who was present voted against the merger; every one of the seven votes in favour came from one of those who had been brought along by, or were apparently connected in some way with, the project team who had been charged with consulting the public. It is bizarre, surely, that one of the principal architects of the proposal for a merger, a senior executive on one of the trusts and a member of the board, was actually found to be voting in favour of a merger about which he was supposedly consulting the public.
Will the Minister now tell the House why the public consultation exercise was aborted—why it was handed over to the district health authority, and removed from the project team? I have received no explanation; indeed, I have received no information that such a change has taken place. I understand that no other local Member of Parliament has been told that a new round of public consultation has been taking place. I consider that a fundamental error. Perhaps it will be explored in other places.
Public consultation about the merger has produced overwhelming hostility from the people of the area. Other than those with vested interests in the outcome of the proposal, no significant represented body or elected individual throughout the Wakefield district—as far as I am aware—has been found to favour it. The proposal was cooked up behind closed doors, and no one has yet made an admission to Members of Parliament representing the district about who first came up with the idea.
What we do know about the mystery is that primary care providers were certainly not consulted at the time. Surely it is outrageous that the community health trust in particular—on which the merger will have a direct bearing—was not consulted when the proposal was being drafted. It is also apparent from first-hand accounts given to me—and others—by local general practitioners that they were not consulted, either. Moreover, we know that the district health authority was not directly involved in the drafting of the proposal. Finally, it appears that the consultants were not involved in the conceptual stages, either individually or as a body.
Who sponsored the original suggestion, if it was not the clinicians and those responsible for the direct provision of care? It seems that the whole train of events was concocted by Department of Health officials, whose primary motivations were financial and administrative rather than clinical. There is also evidence that those same administrators had been conducting discussions with developers about a private finance initiative in relation to the district hospitals, concurrently with preparations to seek the trust merger. Indeed, one of the chairs of the hospital trusts let the cat out of the bag to local Members of Parliament when he informed us that a named private sector developer—we know the name—had requested that the discussions about the PFI in the Wakefield area in relation to the hospitals be put on ice until the proposal had been agreed.
The Secretary of State had suggested to the district Members of Parliament that he would judge any merger proposal on the basis of improvement in clinical care; yet we know that the basis of the merger document about which we are now being consulted was financial and administrative rather than clinical. Indeed, the whole thrust of the document is based on non-clinical considerations. It could not be otherwise, given the way in which the merger proposal itself originated.
Hon. Members will search the document in vain for any detailed proposal about clinical changes. A reading of the document, taken together with discussions with practising hospital clinicians, leads to the conclusion that the reconfiguration of clinical services that is implied—hut not made explicit—in the merger document will be revealed only subsequent to any decision to merge. That is clearly putting the cart before the horse. Changes in the structure of the NHS should follow clinical change, not vice versa.
A reconfiguration of the services is inevitable if a merger takes place, as we all know; yet the public have no idea what the new configuration will look like. Notwithstanding that, they are still being required to express their views during the current flawed public consultation exercise.
Although those who manage the health service in the district have not been prepared to come clean about the new configuration, I think that it is possible to guess its likely shape. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, here is my own educated guess about the likely shape of the health service in the district within a few years, given that the merger proceeds and assuming the continuation of the financing regime of the current Conservative Government.
I guess that a single privately owned acute hospital—possibly on neither of the two existing sites, and clearly geographically and clinically remote from the communities that I represent—will have emerged. Statutory ratios will have changed, and the terms and conditions of staff employment contracts will have been renegotiated. Indeed, secret discussions with the trade unions are already taking place on those matters.
The clinical services will have been transferred—sometimes out of the district entirely—and frequently devolved to fundholding practices. Already existing tensions with other health providers will be exacerbated and the community health trust's future will be placed in jeopardy. Heaven knows what will happen in the case of statutory duties of care that are owed to certain vulnerable


groups. I understand that, in some cases, those duties have already been transferred out of the district to other providers.
That is not the right outcome for our district. I do not accept that the current modus operandi in relation to the consultations is valid in determining the district's needs. What is required is a halt to the merger proposal until such time as a major review, of the type described by my hon. Friend, takes into account both health needs and the district's institutional structures, dealing with, among other points, the seven problems that I outlined.
I hope that the Minister will deal with our request for an overall review and, even at this late stage, put on ice the merger discussions until we can identify the long-term future of health care, which all our citizens would dearly love to be of the best.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I congratulate him on again securing time to debate a subject that is linked to health services in Wakefield—in this case, the proposed merger between Pinderfields hospital and Pontefract general infirrnary trusts. He said that this is the sixth time during this Parliament that he has raised a Wakefield health services matter in an Adjournment debate. Indeed, it is better than that. It is the fourth time since January 1995, which must be a record. I also note the interest of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) in the subject. I associate myself with the tribute that the hon. Member for Wakefield paid to the front-line staff in Wakefield, who, I have every evidence, do a first-class job on behalf of the people in the Wakefield region.
I listened to the concerns of the hon. Member for Wakefield and his case in favour of halting the trust merger consultation. He may be trying, however, to link two separate issues: the management of the acute trusts at Pontefract and Pinderfields and delivery of services. The proposal under discussion in Wakefield and in Pontefract is to merge two trusts or, to be more exact, to dissolve two trusts and create a new one. That proposal is to change the management structure of national health service trusts in Wakefield. It is not, I repeat, a proposal to change services.
I am told that the proposal has strong clinical involvement, and there is said to be clinical support for it. Separately, Wakefield health authority has recently announced that it will shortly reconsider its health strategy and will hold separate public consultation at the appropriate time next year.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister has listened to my explanation, and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), of the acute financial difficulties facing health care providers in Wakefield. Does he accept that it is a complete waste of scarce public resources to have, yet again, a public consultation, when

that consultation will deal with exactly the issues about which we are concerned in the current consultation on merger?

Mr. Horam: That is a matter for the local health authority. Clearly I am in the position, in effect, of an independent person waiting to adjudicate on these matters, when and if they come to me.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I apologise for intervening again.
My intelligence on this issue is that Wakefield health authority will be happy to conduct the public consultation on the merger alongside this wider review, but it has been prevented from having the review of acute services by the regional executive of the NHS. Common sense would suggest that the health authority would want to do that, so the Government are stepping in to prevent it from proceeding in that direction.

Mr. Horam: That is not my information, which is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that a separate consultation is taking place on the merger and that, recently—certainly well after the consultation on the merger began—the health authority said that it wished to reconsider the acute side of its health strategy. That is the chronological order in which things have happened. Therefore, it would be strange for the health authority to merge the two things, having separated them to begin with. I am surprised at what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Trickett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman will know that this is the debate of the hon. Member for Wakefield, and I want to continue a little further.
Separately, as I have said, Wakefield health authority has recently announced that it will shortly reconsider the acute side of its health strategy consultation and will hold separate public consultation at the appropriate time next year. If I can come to the point raised by the hon. Members for Hemsworth and for Wakefield, it is set out in law that the Secretary of State for Health is required to consult on proposals to establish a new NHS trust. The: trust project team asked for local views with the intention of passing them to the Secretary of State. The process began in July and lasted until 22 October. It was soon realised, however, that more was needed to fulfil statutory consultation requirements. That is why the health authority decided to extend the consultation.
The health authority was asked to consult on behalf of the Secretary of State and the consultation period was therefore extended. That has meant that consultation will take longer than it might otherwise have done. The extra consultation period, however, will not be wasted. All the views expressed during both consultation periods will be passed to the NHS executive and, ultimately, to Ministers. The extension has also allowed more time for local people to advance their views—in fact, it has almost doubled the time, as I told the hon. Member for Wakefield earlier this week at Question Time.
After the consultation period has ended in January, the decision whether to merge the two trusts will be taken by Ministers. As I have emphasised, at this stage we must take an independent view of all the proposals that are referred to us. Many factors need to be taken into account


when considering such a proposal. We will consider carefully both the adequacy of the consultation process and local people's views, which the hon. Member for Wakefield has stressed are so important. We will also consider the likely impact on the effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of the potential creation of a new trust. Accessibility was referred to particularly by the hon. Member for Hemsworth, whose constituency adjoins Wakefield.
Any potential economies of scale will have to be balanced against any possible loss of patient choice. Ministers are rightly enjoined to take into account that mixture of considerations when considering the results of consultation. Until all the facts are before us, clearly we cannot comment, beyond saying that we will take it all into the account.
I understand that the hon. Member for Wakefield believes that the consultation on a proposed trust merger is already, in effect, a fait accompli. I assure him that that is absolutely not true. We have a statutory responsibility to consult publicly. Ministers need sufficient information to be able to judge the proposed merger for the value it may or may not have, and the adequacy of the consultation process that has taken place.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the "resignation" of the chairman of the Pinderfields trust, Mr. Roy Cusworth. It is more accurate to say that his period of office as trust chairman ended on 31 October, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Mr. Cusworth did not seek renewal of his appointment. He has, as the hon. Gentleman knows, other business commitments to pursue.
It should be said on Mr. Cusworth's behalf that he leaves behind an able acting chairman and a trust that has recruited 25 new consultants since 1993. The trust has transformed the quality of its treatment for elderly people and has developed a centre for enhanced eye surgery, and Pinderfields and Pontefract hospitals are already co-operating with Dewsbury district hospital to provide an integrated clinical haematology service locally and for a wider population. That is a considerable achievement under Mr. Cusworth's chairmanship, and we should give him due credit for that.
At Health questions earlier this week, the hon. Gentleman and I talked about the "Cook" test, after the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The test was: will organisational change lead to better service? I have no doubt that it has led to better services in Wakefield.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth criticised the agency nurses who had possibly been brought to man a ward, but surely he agrees that it is a flexible way of manning a new ward when an extra ward is needed. We are talking about an extra facility for elderly people so that the local trust can manage resources effectively during the coming winter and have additional facilities available for elderly people. We are talking about additional facilities. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not against that.
I recognise that Pinderfields hospital trust is facing a complex set of interdependent issues. The ultimate goal is to ensure that sustainable high-quality and cost-effective

clinical services are provided in modern facilities. Although the consultation on the proposed merger of the two trusts and, separately, the configuration of health services will take time, those processes should ensure that whatever solution emerges is based on informed debate among the public and the professions.
The hon. Member for Wakefield suggested that the merger proposals should be stopped or combined with a review of health services in Wakefield. In view of his great knowledge of and interest in the matter, he will recall that not long ago Wakefield health authority undertook a detailed consultation on its five-year health strategy. In fact, it was in 1994, and the health strategy was published as recently as March last year. The document covers the needs of everyone in the Wakefield metropolitan district council area. More than 1,000 copies of the full document were issued locally and regionally. A further 125,000 copies of the summary were printed, most of which were issued through the free press. The remainder were handed out at various local events throughout the district.
Representatives of Wakefield health authority also spoke about the strategy to a large number of local groups, as well as holding meetings with the three local national health service trusts and the two community health councils in Wakefield and Pontefract. Those meetings certainly included one with local Members of Parliament. It is worth stressing that Wakefield's health strategy discussed how health services in Wakefield will be shaped over the next five years. It also examined the need for a strategic shift to primary care. Local general practitioners were closely involved in the process.
We are talking about a considered, strategic examination of the health needs of the people of Wakefield. Nevertheless, the health authority plans to revisit and review that part of its health strategy relating to acute health services. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that it was sensible to do that. There are plans to take that forward in the near future. The process is likely to take about six months, and I am assured that it will involve detailed discussions with clinicians and general practitioners and active participation by the two community health councils. Public consultation will follow later in 1997. Judging by the number of debates that we have had—and your own interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have no doubt that local Members of Parliament will be fully and actively involved in the process.
I am grateful for having had this opportunity to respond to the debate. We share the determination of the hon. Member for Wakefield to ensure that high-quality treatment and care continue to be available to people in the Wakefield area. I am absolutely sure that Wakefield health authority, as well as the trusts in the Wakefield and Pontefract area, shares that commitment. Whether a merger of the two trusts in Wakefield will assist in that process is a matter on which I shall keep an open mind until the statutory consultation is completed in January, and the results are known.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eight o'clock.